1392 replies to this topic

[Metalice99]

I agree Kyone, LRM's feel as if they slot into a "support" role now, rather than spamming the equivalent of ICBM's xD Coupled with what feels like improvements in hit detection, the game feels more robust and has regained that MechWarrior spark. BRB, continuing "testing"!

[Evinthal]

Old Git, on 08 November 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

My rant tonight is that last night I really enjoyed the game. The LRMS were working fine and the game was well balanced.
Since the patch tonight the lasers are non-effective, the LRM's are non-effective (and so artemis is just expensive crap as the spread is all wrong), the heat sinks are non-effective.
Why can't you fix things like the crash to desktop and the inconsistent FPS instead of messing with things that work fine. did you even consider giving the previous patch a chance.
I'm going to give the game a week off until you fix it again. Call it a rage quit.

Excellent first post.

Thing is: LRMs were not working fine nor were they balanced.

LRMS were dropping 90 degrees straight down onto people behind hills or buildings that should have been able to give them at least some cover. Not to mention that Artemis was making the missile spreads almost non-existent. Atlas K variants with two AMS were dropping like flies, and the game turned into LRMWarrior Online.

For example I had an Awesome with 4 LRM-10 with Artemis, I son't think I ever saw myself doing under 800 damage in a game.

I really don't know what you mean by heat sinks are non-effective because today I was running a Jenner JR7-K with six medium lasers in a 3 / 3 fire groupings on Caustic Valley and rarely shut down. Now I frequently run a Jenner with 4 medium lasers and 2 SRM-4s and it runs pretty hot, but I don't shut down and I mount like 14 DHS on it. The K variant Jenner I was using had 16 or so I think.

[RragnarR40k]

Lrm's were crazily unbalanced - if they hadn't fixed them today I would see no reason to even bother with the game. It's hard to fathom you could think they were fine...

get a grip...!

[Devil Fox]

LRM's feel over-nerfed right now... you can wither their fire too easily so if you're a faster mover, with plenty of armor you can just charge the enemy and get into a brawl without the fear at all that someone will die to LRM's. I think LRM's are now effectively useless unless you play close support which means you're near the brawl and that means you're more affected by the moving battle lines.

When you can put over 150+ missiles into an Atlas walking across open ground and now even breach a section of internals, something is wrong. It just means that now all you do is charge LRM lines, and you effectively take a mech or 2 out of the battle due to their ineffectiveness and range.

[BloodGhost]

Old Git, on 08 November 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

My rant tonight is that last night I really enjoyed the game. The LRMs were working fine and the game was well balanced.
...

Did we actually play the same game? Sorry, but I simply cannot understand how anyone could call it well balanced as it was. It was easy-mode for LRM boats, everyone else was just there as missile fodder. When you see Commandos carrying nothing but LRMs, you have to realise that something is wrong.

[kaeh]

Agreed with all the points stated by Ohgodtherats, also i want to add that sometimes i see Jenner's cockpit floating in the air sepparated from the rest of the mech.

I also noticed that sometimes I am killed and still have armor remaining in every location (no arms or torsos ripped), were critical location hits implemented on last patch or it is a bug?

Aside from the patch, also think that matching system and reward system needs a little improvement, when matching leaves you in a team of 7 and then you find 1 or 2 afk guys, or farmers that kill themselves just at the start of the match, the rest of the battle is history.

Maybe making rewarding only possible after doing a minor damage points to the opponent (to prevent friendly fire for reward) could solve the farmer issue. I know that sometimes you are hit and die before you can do any damage, but those are the least of the times, and that if you rush towards enemy base and cap without firing wont reward, but capping may also be implemented to achieve reward, cause it's prove to be playing. I really find those matches very annoying and not funny at all.


Thanx for a great game, hope that it keeps getting better with time!

[jasonbw]

im also having the motion blur during damage and after death making viewing nearly impossible.

[SodaFizz]

Hey you asked!, they listened, The hot fix nerfed the LRM swarm and they did it in one day, I think the developers/testers and staff deserve a slap on the back and we need to start showing our support.

Look guys, Enough is enough, If some of you spent the same amount of time rage spewing all over the forums as you did piloting your mechs then you would be H3114 133T. I am playing on low from Australia with a ping of +250 and the game looks and plays great.

Can I ask that we bind together as a community and give PGI what they need most? Constructive Criticism when you cannot adjust your play style to rout an "issue" and props when they do something right??!!

Anyhow Love playing with most of you,

See you on the Battlefield

Love

SODA


**** OMG THEY FIXED THE FAIRY, SHE BOBBLES, SHE FRICKING BOBBLES!!!!!! *****

Edited by SodaMizer, 08 November 2012 - 05:12 PM.

[AGTMADCAT]

telomere, on 08 November 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

How about a fourth option: similar to the way max engine size scaling works, scale DHS efficiency based on weight class. For example, DHS efficiency of 1.4 for Lights, 1.5 for Mediums, 1.6 for Heavies, 1.7 for Assaults.

This would avoid overpowering mechs such as the 6x medlas Jenner or the 9x medlas Hunchback, without overly nerfing energy-focused Heavy and Assault builds such as the AWS-9M. The main drawback I see in this approach is complexity, both in implementing the behaviour, and in explaining it clearly to players in the mechlab etc.

This is actually a very clever solution - I had been trying to figure out how they could make DHS work properly for heavier mechs, and had come up with a bunch of really dumb ideas (Like limiting maximum number of heatsinks based on engine size), but this is a very clean way of doing it. The spread might even be a bit more, 1.25/1.5/1.75/2 for light/medium/heavy/assault, or something like that. That would have to be cleverly adjusted using testing, I think. Since this is a beta after all. =)

-AGT

[KidGloves]

From my obesrvations as a F2P non-premium player who runs around in an assault-class support mech (AWS-8T, fairly similar to stock but with ES, ER/Pulse lasers and Artemis) I find that I tend not to lose money on a match unless I do hideously badly. I only carry 2 tons of LRM ammo - I find that's sufficient for most matches - but while I'm not losing money my profit margin tends to be pretty slim.

If I need c-bills for anything, I will run trial mechs. The trial mechs net me quite a bit more c-bills per match precisely because of the cost of reloading/repairing.

I'd class myself as an average player. I'm usually somewhere in the middle of my team's rankings - with some games finding me near the top and some finding me near the bottom.

Signed for cheaper ammo! Especially since the merc contract I seem to be using is giving me pretty poor rates on salvage rights.

[WardenWolf]

The hotfix today seems to have very well balanced out LRMs again, from what my time in-game today showed and reports here on the forums. For that, and the quick nature of the fix outside of your normal weekly patch schedule I want to say "Thank you!"

I think you guys may not hear that as much as you deserve lately

Edited by WardenWolf, 08 November 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[KidGloves]

I really like the DHS scaling idea. I'm finding as an assault player doubles would be a significant downgrade to my heat dissipation. This will stop the light mech spam-builds and still give the superheavy mechs the heat dissipation they need.

[TigaShark]

Props come when they dont BREAK something while doing a quick fix... in this case, they broke SRM+Artemis as a combination when it was working FINE as it was.

What they DID do was change Artemis while trying to fix LRM, which impacted BOTH SRM and LRM.

AFAIK SRM+Artemis wasn't broken or unbalanced the way it was due to SRM's extremely limited engagement envelope and *manual* aiming requirement ...but they nerfed it while rushing to fix something else which used the same upgrade.

What they SHOULD HAVE DONE is make the spread adjustment to LRM's only by adjusting the base item (via increase LRM spread).. NOT by adjusting the bonus on Artemis itself(reduced Artemis bonus)..

Edited by TigaShark, 08 November 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

LRMs still hurt like hell if you get caught out in the open. But they are not an automatic death sentence for breaking cover.

To me this is just about perfect. You had me worried for a bit there PGI.

[Muffinator]

I know right, I wish these freaking whingers would all shrivel up in the corner. The game is great fun. Sure it takes them a couple of patches to get some things balanced and bugs pop up, that's how software development works!

[ArmyOfWon]

So, for a couple patches now, when you finish a match and go back to the mechlab, your mech has 75% or so of all of its ammo. What I've noticed is that I can take that partial ammo crit and place it back in my inventory, outside of my mech, and the ammo loadout would remain the same (e.g. if I had 8 Gauss rounds on my mech, after removing them my inventory would show I have 8 Gauss rounds at 0.8 tons).

But, if I were to re-equip the partial ammo I had taken off my mech earlier the mechlab would tell me that "I do not own the item and would have to purchase it." In effect, I would have to purchase 2 rounds of Gauss ammo for the same price as a full ton of it! Partial ammo tons exist in the mechlab, but it does not recognize if you have left over ammo and treat it as partial ammo, it treats it as if you have zero ammo!

I'm not one to support 75% free ammo refills, but I do want to use the ammo that I own!

[Kalathin]

Agreed and well put! People need to understand that the dev team is a very human group of people. I know if I was on the receiving end of all the hate spam I saw yesterday I would be very reluctant to reply to forums and more than a bit discouraged. It hard enough to have your boss slam your work but to have literally HUNDREDS of people crapping on every mistake made, well it makes a person hate their job. And seriously people.... Do you want the only people in control of the progress of this game to hate their job because you couldn't act like adults and provide feed back rather than hateful rants? It's ridiculous and needs to stop.

[Taron]

Well, that hotfix was one of the best patches they've done ever

Very well done, Devs

Edited by Taron, 08 November 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[Lightning v01]

I have now been playing for the last few hours possibly 10-20 games and I have only been on the winning team 1 time. I realise that im going to get criticism about how im a bad player, but I can honestly say I am not I have been playing this game for months now and have consistently done well for my self in games.

The reason for this terrible win/loss ratio is that fact that I am constantly comming up against teams or clans. I know because I started asking pre game. I wonder if anyone else has found this problem, I belive it is do do with the new match making system as I had no problems before the latest 6th Nov patch.

Please post here if you have been seeing the same problems so that the Dev's can have a look at the system.

Thanks

[BloodGhost]

Blufocus, on 08 November 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

1. The LRM's were FINE!!! They tracked nicely, flew appropriately (with Artemis over mountains/hills) and I loved the straight down drop. Now I can not tell the difference between having and not having Artemis. What is the point in wasting C-bills/grind time.
...

4. Now, I have a question. WHY do the weapons in the game not directly reflect the damage values from the table top game? You are using the weights and slot requirement, but are failing to STRICTLY adhere to the damages. What will make this game great is to have an online version of this game, that we can see and play, without having to use our imaginations.

No, they were not. We have double armor to counteract the fact that weapons fire more than once every 10 secs (1 turn). LRMs had double damage, how is that for TT numbers? Also, Artemis is not supposed to work if you do not have line of sight. Spotter isn't enough for that. How can you cry about canon stuff and disregard it in the same post?

Weight and slot requirements are the same, because it would break canon chassis. Damage, reload and heat are what can be used without much trouble to balance the game.

And that IS NECESSARY. Disregarding the fact that TT was never properly balanced, the TT numbers are terrible in a real-time enviroment where you have pin-point accuracy (unlike the dice rolls from TT). Just go ahead and play MW3. It's a total snipefest. ERLL and ERML reign supreme. It's BOOM leg blown off. One of the good things about MW4 was that they adressed that (not that they were spot on, but still). LRMs lacking that 90 degree drop-off actually puts a skill requirement into using them.

Blufocus, on 08 November 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

5. Make a great product, that adheres to the lore and original game. Make a solid product, and people will learn to adapt to it. But PLEASE stop trying to change things every time someone whines about something.

As I stated before, changes are necessary to make a game work in a different enviroment. They are necessary because turn-based RNG combat and real-time first-person playing are two entirely different things. There is still a lot of work to be done, and while i disagree with some decisions, they have to be made to make this game playable and eventually balanced.

Blufocus, on 08 November 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

...
and people will learn to adapt to it
...

Seyla!