Jump to content

Patch Notes - 1.4.212.0 - 16-Jul-2019


143 replies to this topic

#21 Arkhangel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 2
  • Mercenary Rank 2
  • 1,139 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia

Posted 12 July 2019 - 04:47 PM

Swear to god, Patch ForumWarriors...

#22 tacorodwarrior

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 197 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationWexford, Ireland

Posted 12 July 2019 - 04:56 PM

View PostArkhangel, on 12 July 2019 - 04:47 PM, said:

Swear to god, Patch ForumWarriors...

And this from the 45% guy on Jarl's list lol.

Edited by tacorodwarrior, 12 July 2019 - 04:57 PM.


#23 Renzor the Red

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 318 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSol 3

Posted 12 July 2019 - 05:15 PM

Hey, PGI.
I was told by email that you were able to reproduce the 'build load/save screen getting stuck' bug and planned on fixing it in the next patch. Is that happening? My game still gets hung up on that once or twice a session.

#24 tee5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 05:30 PM

I brought it up in February 2019, but nobody listened.

https://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/271937-patch-notes-141970-19-feb-2019/

PGI said: "We will be looking to address this behavior and ensure that it's benefits will be more evenly distributed towards all 'Mechs in a future patch."

When will this patch be? August 2078? At least you could stick to your word, and fix it in a future patch? This thing is broken since October 2018.

here is the old post from February.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copied from the October Patch Notes:

Heat Containment Skill Tree Skills
Through our investigations into these heat system changes, we have uncovered that there is a bug in the way that heat containment skills are distributing their benefits. As they currently operate, they are unevenly distributing their benefits towards external heat sinks over internal heat sinks. With us constricting external heatsink heat capacity values, these skill tree nodes will feel less impactful in the incoming heat system overhaul compared to what they are now, or through the PTS series. Although they will still provide some benefit over not taking them at all.
We will be looking to address this behavior and ensure that it's benefits will be more evenly distributed towards all 'Mechs in a future patch.


Did I missed it? Or did they never fixed these issues with heat-skill Nodes and the overhaul of the heat-balance?

Edited by tee5, 12 July 2019 - 05:32 PM.


#25 tee5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 05:36 PM

PS: Almost nothing in this patch. Hope you are working hard on MW5. But this game is starving, because you are working so hard on MW5.

#26 denAirwalkerrr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 05:49 PM

View PostInnerSphereNews, on 12 July 2019 - 02:51 PM, said:

Standalone Client Patch Size: ~TBD MB


This is a new low

#27 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,529 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 12 July 2019 - 05:56 PM

PGI . . . a patch like this does NOTHING to dissuade the Armageddon-speak that's flooding this place ever since Russ's last livestream with NGNG.

I get it. We get it. Most staff are crunching for MW5 to make sure it launches on time and in a decent state. However, you're telling us no one from balance was available to work on MWO? We couldn't even get some minor weapon tweaks for weapons that need it? We STILL don't have fixes for skill nodes that have been broken since the heat system rework? Jump Jets still can't get some nudges up in lift power?

The first few patches after MW5 launches better start ramping up on the productivity to serious levels of work, otherwise you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, of MWO dying, by presenting it as a dead game.

I'd go off on asking Chris about that work on Flamers, but with this patch it doesn't feel like there'll be a game to enjoy by the time the Flamers are even being worked on. That's pathetically sad and disheartening.

#28 denAirwalkerrr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 06:05 PM

View PostSereglach, on 12 July 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

PGI . . . a patch like this does NOTHING to dissuade the Armageddon-speak that's flooding this place ever since Russ's last livestream with NGNG.

I get it. We get it. Most staff are crunching for MW5 to make sure it launches on time and in a decent state. However, you're telling us no one from balance was available to work on MWO? We couldn't even get some minor weapon tweaks for weapons that need it? We STILL don't have fixes for skill nodes that have been broken since the heat system rework? Jump Jets still can't get some nudges up in lift power?

The first few patches after MW5 launches better start ramping up on the productivity to serious levels of work, otherwise you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, of MWO dying, by presenting it as a dead game.

I'd go off on asking Chris about that work on Flamers, but with this patch it doesn't feel like there'll be a game to enjoy by the time the Flamers are even being worked on. That's pathetically sad and disheartening.

I bet Chris is busy balancing MW5

#29 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,529 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 12 July 2019 - 06:09 PM

View PostdenAirwalkerrr, on 12 July 2019 - 06:05 PM, said:

I bet Chris is busy balancing MW5

Well, if they're using XML based equipment files (which UE4 is fully compatible with), any changes they make for MW5 they should be able to do to MWO. Simple.

Otherwise . . . what . . . MW5 is going to be operating with completely different functionality in equipment vs. MWO? That seems like it'd be a pretty bad move on PGI's part.

Edited by Sereglach, 12 July 2019 - 06:09 PM.


#30 shameless

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 471 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 06:15 PM

so this is how the dream dies...

It's been a hell of a run Mechwarriors. I'll be here till the lights go off, which won't be that damn long the way the idiots at PGI are going.

It's a damn shame. You drove the big units away, ruined FW, never delivered on promises to founders, and now the only hopes we have for a First Person Battletech game are hinged on your production of Mechwarrior 5: Mercenaries.

Congrats on showing you guys just don't give a damn about us, or the game.

#31 BROARL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_19
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_19
  • 275 posts
  • Locationinvasion

Posted 12 July 2019 - 06:20 PM

C A L L T O A R M S . . .

dropdeck sale sounds good, I am guessing everyone will exodus solaris now and invasion will be overwhelmed with players.

just make MW5 PvP, clearly you aren't bothered with MWO so please just turn MW5 into something worth playing.

#32 Chiasson Brinker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 252 posts
  • LocationWayside V

Posted 12 July 2019 - 06:57 PM

View PostBROARL, on 12 July 2019 - 06:20 PM, said:

C A L L T O A R M S . . .

dropdeck sale sounds good, I am guessing everyone will exodus solaris now and invasion will be overwhelmed with players.

just make MW5 PvP, clearly you aren't bothered with MWO so please just turn MW5 into something worth playing.



It'll be worth playing as long as I can sit down at my computer and stomp around a map like a digital Godzilla without listening to people whinge more than they play.

#33 Kamikaze Viking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 375 posts
  • LocationStay on Topic... STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted 12 July 2019 - 07:09 PM

View Posttacorodwarrior, on 12 July 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

I am willing to bet that it is as simple as a number change on a document like this to change Conquest ticket count.


Yeah, what happened there? I was watching the timer the other day and noticed it going faster that it should have been.

IE years ago, Playing Div A comp we lost a match by calculating it wrong so I became very aware of how it worked :
*1 ticket, per cap point owned, every TWO seconds.*

yet the other day it looked like it was :
*1 ticket, per cap point owned, every ONE second.*

So something changed recently

#34 BROARL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_19
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_19
  • 275 posts
  • Locationinvasion

Posted 12 July 2019 - 07:17 PM

View PostChiasson Brinker, on 12 July 2019 - 06:57 PM, said:

It'll be worth playing as long as I can sit down at my computer and stomp around a map like a digital Godzilla without listening to people whinge more than they play.


I hear you whinging but I have never seen you playing...?
must be a timezone thing, I only average 12hours a day.

#35 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,529 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 12 July 2019 - 07:24 PM

View Postshameless, on 12 July 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

*snip* and now the only hopes we have for a First Person Battletech game are hinged on your production of Mechwarrior 5: Mercenaries. *snip*

Worthy of correction, here . . . sadly . . . since it's not a great outlook.

The only hope of ANY future Battletech games hinge on the success of MW5. HBS wouldn't have been able to do their "Battletech" game without the art assets from PGI, which saved them literal millions in production costs. If PGI fails the Battletech IP will be considered too far gone and too toxic for anyone to ever want to touch it in the future.

HBS might be able to secure the art assets for a few more expansions for their game, but you likely won't see anything wholly new without the support of PGI (or their access to the license, from Microsoft, that they shared with HBS to begin with). In addition, they also have enough other IPs (especially being a subsidiary of Paradox, now) to succeed elsewhere. Besides, it'd be extremely doubtful that Paradox would want to pay Microsoft, and pick up PGI's license, for HBS to continue working on Battletech.

The whole IP really hinges on the success of MW5. Here's hoping it doesn't fail, especially with how MWO is looking.

#36 crazytimes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 712 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 07:44 PM

Whoa, should you test these kind of changes before making them live? This patch is going to change the entire shape of the game!

Edited by crazytimes, 12 July 2019 - 07:45 PM.


#37 Paladin IIC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Carnivore
  • The Carnivore
  • 106 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:15 PM

Goes to show, this game is about as dead as Hilary Clinton's sex life.

#38 Monke-

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Major General
  • Major General
  • 249 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:17 PM

You know what disappoints me the most? No fix for not being able to change server regions.

#39 Tarl Cabot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 7,036 posts
  • LocationImperial City, Luthien - Draconis Combine

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:22 PM

Still no bandwidth to bring isXL inline with LFE/cXL by surviving ST loss but with different penalties? We have been waiting since the time the new Skill Tree went live......

View PostTarl Cabot, on 12 March 2019 - 09:44 PM, said:


Up to a point, it really doesnt balance the one to the other two since XL is an instant death when 1st ST is lost, regardless if tthe pilot is sitting at 0% or 100%. It does allow the argument that as long as the capacity is being removed from the top, to bring XL into the folder of the cXL/LFE by removing the instant death penalty while setting the XL with the current heat penalty and a slightly higher movement penalty, reduce the cXL to the middle of the road and the LFE to below the cXL.

Add a 3rd field. PGI has shown it can separate capacity and dissipation rate, while not do the same when 1st ST is lost?
  • isXL 40% Engine loss heat capacity / x% loss heat dissipation / 25% movement
  • cXL 25-30% Engine loss heat capacity/ x% loss heat dissipation / 20% movement
  • LFE 15-20% Engine loss heat capacity/ x% loss heat dissipation / 15% movement

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 12 July 2019 - 09:29 PM.


#40 Monke-

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Major General
  • Major General
  • 249 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:36 PM

View PostTarl Cabot, on 12 July 2019 - 09:22 PM, said:

Still no bandwidth to bring isXL inline with LFE/cXL by surviving ST loss but with different penalties? We have been waiting since the time the new Skill Tree went live......


What would ever be the point of running an LFE then beyond slot usage? IS builds tend to run cooler anyway so you could lose 40% of your engine heat cap and still be pretty fine.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users