Jump to content

Patch Notes - 1.4.291.0 - 23-January-2024


172 replies to this topic

#121 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 3,243 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 25 January 2024 - 11:31 AM

View PostAbaddun, on 21 January 2024 - 06:52 AM, said:


This is most certainly a HAG nerf, you're not able to deal as much damage to a single location and you need to hit wither CT or ST to deal damage equal to what it is now. I do like the shortening of the burst intervals, HAG40s felt a little sub-par for the tonnage because of the long burst and it's good to see that changed.
Think of this as pseudo spread, I personally think HAGs should have spread to better reflect their role in lore, but having splash emulates spread without having random luck be a deciding factor whether or not you actually hit.
actually it was fairly Lore accurate the first time as each pellet did 5 damage which was close as they could get in the current format of the game with the ability to aim, In tabletop [color=#000000]Damage location is then determined in 5-point groups plus any remainder below 5 being the final roll[/color]

But as usual clan can't have nice things..... they'll probably nerf the hell out of the new laser come may as well...


The change to Lrms and Ecm is getting annoying.... I wanted to refrain from posting as I haven't played the game in awhile.... but seeing these patch notes I'm not too interested in getting back in... see you all in march to test the new guns before they nerf the crap out of them...

Edited by KursedVixen, 25 January 2024 - 11:34 AM.


#122 ExoForce

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 777 posts
  • LocationFields of the Nephilim

Posted 25 January 2024 - 11:36 AM

Pro players must hide from LRMs, eh???

#123 Steve Pryde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 25 January 2024 - 12:16 PM

Patch sale?

#124 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 3,243 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 25 January 2024 - 12:55 PM

View PostExoForce, on 25 January 2024 - 11:36 AM, said:

Pro players must hide from LRMs, eh???
Yes because they don't use aimbots :P

#125 SirEpicPwner

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Lucky Seven
  • Lucky Seven
  • 61 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationKentucky

Posted 25 January 2024 - 05:49 PM

I saw that engines, weapons and Atlas went on sale; would there be any chance the mechs changed in the patch (Osiris etc.) could also go on sale?
Thanks.

#126 Mkoll666

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Terror
  • 60 posts

Posted 26 January 2024 - 02:52 AM

View PostClay Endfield, on 23 January 2024 - 11:14 AM, said:

News Flash: Most players don't max Radar Dep.


Buddy that's not correct 😅

#127 Far Reach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tracker
  • The Tracker
  • 145 posts

Posted 26 January 2024 - 12:25 PM

View PostMkoll666, on 26 January 2024 - 02:52 AM, said:

Buddy that's not correct ������


Yes it is. Your experience is *not* the majority.

#128 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 26 January 2024 - 12:26 PM

I actually don't often max radar deprivation, particularly on big 'mechs. Its value decreases with slower chassis because the enemy can keep you locked for longer anyway. It's still an extremely useful skill option, but since a major benefit comes with just one point, the opportunity costs for other skills can be steep, particularly with ECM.

As for the terrible, terrible act of nerfing LRMs and ECM, well - ECM is one of the most powerful items in the game. The stuff that it does for minimal tonnage is crazy useful, which is why ECM chassis are often balanced around the system. With so many 'mechs now sporting ECM on a variant or omnipod, it's totally reasonable to see it nerfed.

LRMs are more complicated. In the hands of an unskilled user, or in the presence of many counter-systems (i.e. blocking terrain, lots of AMS, etc) the system is totally underwhelming. Just bring lasers, right? They're staring weapons, too, and you'll get better trading. But with a team, even a partial premade, designed for them, they are intensely annoying in quickplay when the map and team comp fall out a certain way. It can be difficult or impossible for a quickplay team to deal with LRMs on some maps - and a big part of that is the prevalence of cover and the ability of LRMs to go over that cover.

So! LRM jockeys have been ignoring Artemis for quite some time, at least the ones in the know. The system just didn't provide enough of a situational boost to justify the tonnage and space. Now, it's a little more justified because it always has an effect, particularly in indirect fire where it used to do nothing. Speaking of indirect fire, the angle was too steep for a lot of incoming volleys. If my Stone Rhino is behind a rock on Canyon network that it can't see over, it should not be taking leg damage from UAV-locked LRM fire.

Are the changes good overall? As always, we'll have to test them live to see - but knee-jerk reactions from people who don't even play are not valuable for predicting that outcome.

#129 Far Reach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tracker
  • The Tracker
  • 145 posts

Posted 26 January 2024 - 08:55 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 26 January 2024 - 12:26 PM, said:

knee-jerk reactions from people who don't even play are not valuable for predicting that outcome.

The LRM nerfs are hilariously transparent and the effort to spin them as some kind of secret buff is preposterous.
Also pretty certain every person who commented here has, or does play MWO.

#130 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 27 January 2024 - 01:28 PM

View PostFar Reach, on 26 January 2024 - 08:55 PM, said:

The LRM nerfs are hilariously transparent and the effort to spin them as some kind of secret buff is preposterous.
Also pretty certain every person who commented here has, or does play MWO.


Do you read threads before you comment on them? Doing that more carefully might save you some embarrassment. "Good" does not mean "a weapon system I like got nerfed," nor can you be forgiven for ignoring comments made on the same page as the partial post you're quoting. Even if Vix hadn't directly said she no longer plays, your opinion would be incorrect. While most posters do play the game, there are always people who literally just log in to complain about the notes for a patch they haven't actually experienced.

#131 Far Reach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tracker
  • The Tracker
  • 145 posts

Posted 27 January 2024 - 06:58 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 27 January 2024 - 01:28 PM, said:

Do you read threads before you comment on them? Doing that more carefully might save you some embarrassment. "Good" does not mean "a weapon system I like got nerfed," nor can you be forgiven for ignoring comments made on the same page as the partial post you're quoting. Even if Vix hadn't directly said she no longer plays, your opinion would be incorrect. While most posters do play the game, there are always people who literally just log in to complain about the notes for a patch they haven't actually experienced.


People are abandoning your community and you respond with: "Good, we never needed those people anyway"?
Why are you so invested in defending this boondoggle of an update?
Why must you make so many pathetic sleights, reddit-talking person?

#132 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 27 January 2024 - 09:46 PM

It's not "sleighting" people to point out that they don't know what they're talking about - whether that's Vix, or you. Your clumsy attempt to redirect the conversation from your own errors is unsuccessful, by they way. I'm not going to dignify any of your straw men with a rebuttal, except to point out that using a straw man is a form of lying, and you should stop doing it. You're not doing very well for yourself at avoiding embarrassment today... you're literally making up things that I haven't said because you don't read well; it isn't a good look.

As I pointed out in the nuanced opinion you willfully ignored, LRMs are a problem weapon. They're very easy to use, but their actual effectiveness relies heavily on factors outside of the pilot's individual performance. Team composition is a huge factor in LRM effectiveness, for example, that a pilot does not control- and to top it all off, LRM damage is inflated from its actual killing power. This gives a situation where LRM boats can either smash enemies when spotters and favorable terrain exist, but often struggle to kill enemies despite putting up moderate damage numbers. With the previous volley height, I've had my Stone Rhino take significant leg damage despite being parked behind a rock fully taller than the Battlemech. The guy hitting me wasn't doing anything skilled; he literally just had a spotter, and I took a lot of unanswerable damage from him purely because of that. This is the problem with LRMs in general, and with the volley height specifically, pre-patch. The change is reasonable and thought-out. If additional balance is required - as it likely will be - the weapon systems or individual 'mechs can be changed. That's how this works.

Artemis is also a problem with that system, for the same reasons that those who really understand LRMs seldom use it. The tonnage and (perhaps more importantly) space requirements provide a strongly situational benefit that is often just not in play for most of the match. For a lot of LRM platforms, this amounts to a 4-6 ton build tax for a small benefit that may never trigger during a match, and the space inflation can invalidate builds - particularly for 'mechs using head- or CT-mounted LRMs. So Artemis needs a reason for people to take it, and now they do. If it still does not provide enough benefit, or the weapon system underperforms in general, the weapon system or individual 'mechs can be changed. That's how this works.

How this does not work is subjective hissy fits about how LRMs totally didn't need a nerf, conspiracy theories about how the Cauldron hates LRMs (because aimbots, apparently?) or complaints that LRMs arc like ATMs now, so now there's no important difference between the systems. While people are throwing fits, the grown-ups will be using LRMs on people, and generating the numbers and data the developers need to tune the system.

In short, as the actual announcement put it:

View PostInnerSphereNews, on 20 January 2024 - 06:30 PM, said:

Updates are subject to further balance changes in the future, so get out there and do the science, and get us your feedback for future iterations.


Edited by Void Angel, 27 January 2024 - 09:47 PM.


#133 Lifeblight

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Khan
  • The Khan
  • 32 posts

Posted 28 January 2024 - 08:41 AM

Increase the tonnage to 265 for Clan in FP.

Edited by Lifeblight, 28 January 2024 - 08:42 AM.


#134 ExoForce

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 777 posts
  • LocationFields of the Nephilim

Posted 28 January 2024 - 11:37 AM

View PostRhaelcan, on 22 January 2024 - 10:15 PM, said:

Lol, mad about a bug.


No, it is not a bug. It is intended feature, introduced on purpose.

Edited by ExoForce, 28 January 2024 - 11:38 AM.


#135 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 28 January 2024 - 12:30 PM

No, it isn't. Stop being crazy.

Whether or not the patch should have rolled out with that particular bug really comes down to how prevalent it is. That's because delaying the change means delaying LRM rebalancing; and they probably want to get some data for a balance pass before the Thunderbolt releases, you know? So likely the bug isn't game-breaking in testing, and the opportunity costs of just stopping LRM balance cold were greater than the gameplay impact of the bug.

#136 Viltor

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 70 posts

Posted 28 January 2024 - 02:13 PM

View PostCh0c0L4t3m1Lk, on 24 January 2024 - 11:48 AM, said:

[color=#959595]lower height means you can effectively hit things further away since they dont waste distance travelling 50m up then 50m down every time. [/color][color=#959595] it also reduces the distance so even though they are slower, the shortened distance may get them there around the same time. although they may also merely crash into the side of a lot more building and mountains[/color]

[color=#959595]its when you get some idiot moving 40km/h in an assault try to walk across an open space and dies horribly to my LRMs while im in a canyon on the other side of the map thats crying.[/color]


There's 22m per 1000m total travel distance change after 50m height decrease. That's 2% distance decrease, versus 15% velocity nerf.

This is the main reason LRMs get nerfed every time. Once a month, some guy from "game balancing" group will play his King Crab and will get destroyed by LRMs.

#137 w0qj

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,611 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationAt your 6 :)

Posted 28 January 2024 - 02:22 PM

The Executor Sovereign Legendary mech will be given 2x unique ballistic arm on omnipods in Feb, retroactively!
https://mwomercs.com...overeign-update

Thank you MWO! :)

#138 Viltor

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 70 posts

Posted 28 January 2024 - 02:30 PM

View PostEVA_Unit_4A, on 25 January 2024 - 09:50 AM, said:

I do not post to the forums very often, but this latest patch in regards to LRMs specifically has me really upset.

I have been using LRMs for many years, and the nerfs to the ballistic arcs and velocity just to promote a feature that was previously optional makes me angry. TL;DR- LRMs are no longer different from ATMs.

I made two videos elaborating on my opinions (as opposed to walls-of-text here Posted Image). It is better to show than to say!





Locust with 2xLRM5? Ugh..... One AMS will nullify your damage input. Lowest you can go on LRM boat is LRM40, if it got some really good quirks, I mean really really good like 40% cooldown or velocity.
Lightest LRM boat I can think of is Jagermech-A, it got good quirks and can fit 4xLRM15+A.

#139 Viltor

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 70 posts

Posted 28 January 2024 - 02:34 PM

View PostExoForce, on 25 January 2024 - 11:36 AM, said:

Pro players must hide from LRMs, eh???


I guess it's easier to change game, than to hide from LRMs.

#140 Viltor

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 70 posts

Posted 28 January 2024 - 02:47 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 26 January 2024 - 12:26 PM, said:

[color=#959595]So! LRM jockeys have been ignoring Artemis for quite some time, at least the ones in the know. The system just didn't provide enough of a situational boost to justify the tonnage and space. Now, it's a little more justified because it always has an effect, particularly in indirect fire where it used to do nothing. [/color]


By using this logic I can say that PGI should nerf velocity on ballistic weapons, to force players to use TC8 more.





4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users