163 replies to this topic

[Tordin]

Seems some peeps are extremly allergic towards missiles ( some at pgi to apperantly..). ATM, no skill?? I understand 1km backyard LRM carriers having no skill. But ATMS had this odd high risk high reward mechanics with different brackets of range and damage you have to be AWARE of to maximize dmg output. The recent lurm changes also were a step in the right direction. Now just add back missile "bending" and at least that could give lurms a "skill" element.

[lobsterhierarchy]

aardappelianen, on 15 June 2019 - 03:40 AM, said:

yay buffs !, can we have lppc and rocketlauncher min range reduction next please pgi ?

r/murderedbywords XD

ATMs are a fun tool but do require some skill to use in terms of positioning. What is the point of the er missiles and why nerf the min range bracket? No one except for absolute potatoes uses ATMs at 1100 meters.

Do the range quirks change these range brackets? Does it move out all my brackets or just give me extended extended 1 damage missile range?


This is a straight up lazy patch with absolute tripe passed off as “balancing”. Why nerf weapons when you should make other weapons better or give out better quirks to allow them to compete? Bring back 20%+ quirks to mechs that really need it.

Running clan competitively you never see anything other than mkIIb/blood asp, HBR, VGL/huntsman atms, and mg choice of light mech. You’ll see some varied range builds for those poorly designed maps. Good luck finding groups of people rolling in gargoyles/executioners (linebacker largely supplants them), black lanners, vipers, summoners, and other maligned mechs that don’t see the light of day. Invariably certain mechs will rise to the top and stay there, but it’s laughable to even try other builds and other mechs due to the weapon nerfs and lack of strong quirks on chassis.

Could you guys make the timber wolf and summoner actually usable?

[Bolo Atari]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 15 June 2019 - 03:51 AM, said:

Opinions

Look man, your sig is top shelf

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

aardappelianen, on 15 June 2019 - 03:40 AM, said:

yay buffs !, can we have lppc and rocketlauncher min range reduction next please pgi ?

Unfortunately removing the min-range on LPPCs would really good if you boat them.

[Y E O N N E]

QuakeRiley, on 15 June 2019 - 08:18 AM, said:

Unfortunately removing the min-range on LPPCs would really good if you boat them.

No it wouldn't. Even 9x LPPCs is only going to be 45 damage spread across three shots, so who cares? Medium-class lasers would still be dramatically superior in close.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

InnerSphereNews, on 14 June 2019 - 04:26 PM, said:

Faction Play Improvements

• When viewing the Faction Selection screen, players can now see the population balance between both prior to selecting a side.

Finally.

Quote

ATMs (All launchers.)

• 3 Damage Range Zone reduced to 245 (from 270)
  
• 3 Dmg to 2 Dmg Liner Falloff Zone range reduced to 295 (from 320)

These numbers ... not just an impossible to read graph ... and the impact of skills, quirks, etc. ... need to be included in the description of all weapon systems that have different damage profiles at different ranges.

Quote

'Mech Changes ... Banshee ... Atlas ... Kodiak

The rationales are solid, but the changes -- particularly for the Banshee -- are probably not enough.

Big picture, good fixes, and I'm happy that you're trying to make the game better, albeit slowly.

[Felbombling]

That's a pretty tight ATM window for optimal damage, but ok.

It would be really, really nice if you guys could make range charts in the Mech Lab that didn't include approximation as part of the design. I'd fall out of my chair if you guys added some actual text in those charts that represented some hard range numbers.

If Deadpool worked at PGI, he'd rub his hands together at the beginning of each shift and say, "Minimum effort!"

[byter75]

Mostly incidental buffs with some sweeping nerfs that make the game less fun, basically the same as most of the other patches lately.

[Navid A1]

Here is my take:

• LBX2 spread reduced by 8%:

ok... LBX2 was being used before this, but I'd take that spread reduction. It's ok.

• LBX5 spread reduced by 4.7%:

Let me put it to you this way... LBX5 currently has the crown for the WORST weapon in the game... and that title in MWO does not come easy since there are a lot of competitors.
That whole FFFF IIIII VVVV EEEE percent spread reduction will do NOTHING... absolutely NOTHING!
This is nothing but a disconnect from reality by PGI.
If you want to make a meaningful change reduce LB5 spread by 30% at the very least.... not that you'll do it, but I'm just mentioning it here for the record.

• ATM changes

A move in the right direction. I like the long range damage increase, yet I'd have preferred to see a similar damage reduction for the 3-damage range bracket...but we'll see how it goes

• non-3 KDK mobility increase

A good change... could have used more agility, but still.

• Atlas mobility increase

Good change, but should have gone further.






Overall... these changes are all in the right direction.... but it seems like PGI is still obsessed with 0-5% changes and too scared of fixing things because they can't seem to project and predict the effects.

Edited by Navid A1, 15 June 2019 - 10:59 AM.

[BenMillard]

Quote

Fixed a bug where the text in the Mission tab on the Conflicts Panel was scrolled to the bottom by default.

Was the box made bigger so it doesn't need to scroll, too?

Spacing between elements corrected to follow a logical and visually pleasing heirarchy?

Basic lining up of scrollbars with their background colours completed?

MWO user interface more wonky than the Corsair - while making less sense.

Solaris shows PGI can do better but choose not to.

Looking forwads to the MW5 UI AMA, although pictures speak a thousand words.

Edited by BenMillard, 15 June 2019 - 01:42 PM.

[Gladiolix]

What if PGI gave some underdog mechs (like SB) quirks that would massively improve their performance and maybe even make them 'new-meta' good..? YOU GUYS COULD ALWAYS TONE IT DOWN IN THE NEXT PATCH!!!

Frankly they are too afraid to do that and just keep giving meager 5 percent buffs to mechs that 50 percent wouldnt break....

[Paladin IIC]

More un-needed weapon balance, the usual fraction of a percentage increase or decrease to mech values; the usual stuff PGI does to make it seem like the game is alive, essentially like poking a dead fish with a stick. Not interested in buying mech packs when it takes you guys over a year to add any meaningful content, meaning maps that aren't reskinned. Honestly, who am I kidding, there's still the basic optimization issues this game has had since launch. You guys want money and want to put in minimal effort to earn it, pretty sure that's gonna hurt your bottom line at the end of month.

Edited by _Senko, 15 June 2019 - 03:04 PM.

[Mister Maf]

ATM nerfs and Banshee/Atlas buffs are very welcome. Next the Highlander could use some more CT armor, too. Kodiak needs more.

Edited by Mister Maf, 15 June 2019 - 03:27 PM.

[Stargazzer811]

Navid A1, on 15 June 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

Here is my take:

• LBX2 spread reduced by 8%:

ok... LBX2 was being used before this, but I'd take that spread reduction. It's ok.

• LBX5 spread reduced by 4.7%:

Let me put it to you this way... LBX5 currently has the crown for the WORST weapon in the game... and that title in MWO does not come easy since there are a lot of competitors.




That whole FFFF IIIII VVVV EEEE percent spread reduction will do NOTHING... absolutely NOTHING!
This is nothing but a disconnect from reality by PGI.
If you want to make a meaningful change reduce LB5 spread by 30% at the very least.... not that you'll do it, but I'm just mentioning it here for the record.

• ATM changes

A move in the right direction. I like the long range damage increase, yet I'd have preferred to see a similar damage reduction for the 3-damage range bracket...but we'll see how it goes

• non-3 KDK mobility increase

A good change... could have used more agility, but still.

• Atlas mobility increase

Good change, but should have gone further.





Overall... these changes are all in the right direction.... but it seems like PGI is still obsessed with 0-5% changes and too scared of fixing things because they can't seem to project and predict the effects.

So what get out of this is you're upset that PGI is incrementally balancing the game to ensure accurate balance that is acceptable to the playerbase, upset because ATMs do 3 points of damage up close (as they do in TT), think the LB-5X sucks (it doesn't, use it all the time and get kills often) and oh your Atlas doesn't move like a Medium. I hit all those points right? (rhetorical question)

Also I disagree with the ATM nerfs. If you are going to reduce 3 point dmg range, reduce the minimum range to 90 meters (or better still do away with it, since Clan missiles are more advanced)

Edited by Avalon91211, 15 June 2019 - 04:46 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

If the increments are so small that the impacts are indistinguishable, you are incrementing too finely.

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 15 June 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

Overall... these changes are all in the right direction.... but it seems like PGI is still obsessed with 0-5% changes and too scared of fixing things because they can't seem to project and predict the effects.

Lol. I think we all know why. It's because they don't play their own game.

[Valdarion Silarius]

No Rifleman IIC center torso hitbox fixes? I find that odd, considering that Chris and Daeron are well aware of the issue. I like the general buffs to the lbx's and the Kodiak. If only another old mech like the Executioner gets a fix, and the Rifleman IIC gets the hitboxes adjusted I'd be a happy camper.

[Dee Eight]

InnerSphereNews, on 14 June 2019 - 04:26 PM, said:

Kodiak Design notes: While the Kodiak may have been known for its speed in the fiction, the reality is that most players customize away from its 400 engine in order to maximize on its large amount of hardpoints, most with tight clustering, and higher mounts in the case of torso hardpoints. In the past, this has forced our hand at balancing the entirety of the KDK line around its offensive payload potential especially accounting for it's potential to boat large amounts of heatsinks and in the case of some individual variants, store most to the entirety of its payload in tightly clustered high mounted torso locations.

What a crock. THe only kodiaks that got their engines downsized to fit more weapons were the KDK-3s, and only because of your own error in not applying ghost heat scale properly to the UAC/10s causing the meta build for that mech to be quad UAC/10s for several months. The rest did NOT get their engines reduced because there was no need to do so, and didn't deserve to ever have their agility #s and torso twist angles chopped down. For that matter...in the LORE... the KDK-3 had dual LBX-20s to be used as an anti-aircraft mech... how exactly are you treating it properly as such by cutting the twist angle by a third (from 90 to 60) and the pitch angle by 20% (from 20 to 16) ?! If you HADN'T given the thing four ballistic hardpoints in the first place (just about every other kodiak had exactly the correct # of hardbpoints for the for their respective lore weapons loadouts other than the PGI hero creation one, and the KDK-4 which also got two ballistic hardpoints on a mech that only held a single LBX20), and made it part of the basic mech pack... there'd never have been the problems with them that ended up in your overall nerfing of the chassis and alienating THOUSANDS of customers who put good money into them.

Edited by Dee Eight, 15 June 2019 - 08:40 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Gladiolix, on 15 June 2019 - 02:05 PM, said:

What if PGI gave some underdog mechs (like SB) quirks that would massively improve their performance and maybe even make them 'new-meta' good..? YOU GUYS COULD ALWAYS TONE IT DOWN IN THE NEXT PATCH!!!

Frankly they are too afraid to do that and just keep giving meager 5 percent buffs to mechs that 50 percent wouldnt break....

The only reason some Mechs need buffs is because other Mechs have been buffed to ridiculous levels. The buffs and nerfs are never ending slippery slope in MWO.

[Tarogato]

Avalon91211, on 15 June 2019 - 04:43 PM, said:

So what get out of this is you're upset that PGI is incrementally balancing the game to ensure accurate balance that is acceptable to the playerbase...

A: Incrementally balancing via infinitesimal adjustments just means PGI takes longer to achieve an acceptable result
B: PGI has a history of making such a change, and not following up on it for years.
C: Treading clearly too carefully is further proof to support that PGI doesn't know/play their own game

At least it's a positive change from PGI's previously heavy-handed nerf-bat approach to balancing.

Quote

... upset because ATMs do 3 points of damage up close (as they do in TT) ...

Players who are actually good at the game, and mastered ATM range management, report that ATMs are overpowered as they are. I personally have no such luck with them, and I never experience them as a major threat in my games, but I can't deny how effective they are for the people who have taken the time to master them. Also, BattleTech lore may form the basis of Mechwarrior, but tabletop rules only forms the inspiration for equipment stats, and should not be regarded as gospel. When imbalanced present themselves in this, a completely different game, it is only appropriate to make the necessary adjustments.

Quote

... think the LB-5X sucks (it doesn't, use it all the time and get kills often) ...

LB5 does indeed suck. It's quite possibly the single most useless weapon in the game, by a large margin.

Consider that, due to spread, the LB5 achieves 100% pinpoint damage against the CT of an average mech at around 175m or less. Which is to say, the damage output of LB5 begins to drop off at the same range as a Clan Small Pulse does. Knowing that, consider that LB5 deals approximately +25% damage to structure. And if you are outside of 175m, at least one of your LB5 pellets will miss, which means you will lose 20% of your pinpoint damage. And at farther ranges when two of your pellets miss, you are losing 40% of your pinpoint damage.

That is why AC5 is superior to LB5 - the ranges at which you use a 5-size autocannon are such that the AC5 will deal more damage than the LB5 to the component you are intending to hit. And if you plan to use the LB5 at close ranges where it is 100% pinpoint accurate, you are beholden to the face-time disadvantage of the fast rate of fire, whereas LB10 and LB20 can afford to shoot and torso twist between shots, while having superior baseline DPS. LB5 just doesn't deal enough damage to brawl with, and it's not accurate enough at midrange for the crit bonus to be an advantage - it is simply outperformed by other weapons in whichever niche you decide to classify it as.

Quote

... and oh your Atlas doesn't move like a Medium.

Atlas used to torso twist faster. The role of the Atlas is to tank, and almost exclusively to brawl. The fact that it twists slower than it used to (and mobility tree being a ridiculously expensive investment) precludes the Atlas from fulfilling its optimal role. If it can't twist fast enough, it can't spread damage. If it can't spread damage, it can't tank. If it can't tank, it dies before it can carry its own weight.