1392 replies to this topic

[Raven-kell]

Seems like a lot of writing on things they are working on already. 2 WEEKS! and 8 mans will be back, get over it.
TT nerds need to go play tt FFS.
This game is not able to implement the things straight across.
We fire 3 times faster than TT this is why we have double the armor. I take it you weren't around when mechs only lived 10 seconds because the high fire rate low armor. Do you really want to fire TT rules? this game would die over night.

[riverslq]

MadMadness, on 07 November 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

I thought this game was one of the best multi-player games I've played in a long time... until the patch hit. I work with computers writing code and developing solutions and whenever I setup a staging environment (alpha) I do a crap ton of testing so when I release it to a test group of users (beta) there are as little issues as possible. Things are supposed to progressively get better in beta, not worse.

I really find it hard to imagine that PGI didn't extensively test this patch before release but that seems like exactly what happened. Quite frankly, as a result, the game is broken. So broke in fact that I went from loving this game to no longer wanting to play in one day and I can see I am not the only person who has no desire to play anymore. I'll tell you another thing. I've never seen ANY beta that accepted users money(Not counting Diablo 3).

I couldn't say it any better myself.

[1nferno]

hit detection is soooooo much better! Kudos, PGI.

[StandingCow]

Think it was reverted back to pre-patch which was better. Lights still get a bit of a lag shield... but to be honest I was always ok with that, lights need the help.

[twibs]

Getting fixed.
http://mwomercs.com/...hotfix-nov-8th/

[Dig Bickerson]

I didn't really much mind to my repair costs and rearm costs of my mech since I was using a Commando and it costs me about ~20K at the most to fully repair it.

I purchased a Hunchback (2 LRMs and laser variant, sorry don't remember the name) after saving up the money and I've noticed that the repair costs have a wide gap from going to a light mech to a medium mech. My average repair costs go from 20K if it's just ammo, or 50K for dying or taking heavy damage.

I'm a F2P player so let me somewhat breakdown the C-Bill math for my average Hunchback game.

C-Bills from loss: ~78K to ~100K.
C-Bills from Win: ~100k to ~150K
Rearm/Repair Costs: ~20K with no damage or just ammo to ~63K from dying or taking damage, and using LRM ammo.
Net Gain: ~20K to ~100K depending on what happened.

Now I assume as a Founder or for those that have premium time having a decent profit from C-Bills doesn't seem like something to worry about seeing as you get bonuses (super jealous of the Founder's ~200K to ~300K winnings lol) so this doesn't seem like a big problem. However as a F2P it really discourages me from saving up for bigger mechs, let alone purchasing a medium because I'd hate to imagine what the repair bills would be for the bigger mechs.

It was sad that using the trial mechs did much better for me because you don't have to pay any costs which means that I can easily get ~80k to ~120K without losing any of it to costs. I really don't want to go back to being a paper-thin Commando again, sure it netted me much more money but I did not like scouting at all. I prefer to do some combat, which is why I saved up for a medium mech and sold my Commando.

TL;DR: I feel discouraged to try out bigger mechs because I feel like I'll have a smaller profit or that I'll actually lose a lot of money on the rearm/repair costs. Trial mechs are netting me more money which I think it shouldn't. Maybe the ammo costs for LRMs could be toned down a tad so they're not astronomically high when added all up.

Edited by gaddeath, 08 November 2012 - 01:29 PM.

[CocoaJin]

riverslq, on 07 November 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

But we have 3.
Same as yesterday.

Wonder if the patch had anything to do with it.

You're in luck, that means you have no problem making a 4 man team. At least we dont have to hear a whine about how hard its going to be to choose which friends to play with.

[Roadbuster]

Expensive LRM-Artemis ammo is fine but this brings up another issue.
If the cost is too high non premium players won't be able to use them creating a scenario of pay2win.
I agree that they should cost more than normal LRM ammo but the artemis should be viable for non premium payers too.

[Aym]

CocoaJin, on 07 November 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

You're in luck, that means you have no problem making a 4 man team. At least we dont have to hear a whine about how hard its going to be to choose which friends to play with.

Oh snap!

[Waladil]

Repair/Rearm costs are higher among the larger weight classes, but not by a lot. I am a Founder, but even without my premium bonuses I have to lose very very badly to not make money on a match, piloting an Awesome, with XL engine, endo steel, and double heat sinks.
As it stands there's a 75% free repair/rearm, and that greatly reduces the difference in price among the weight classes.

From my POV, the current income system is fair but somewhat harsh on the new players, and it imposes a natural storyline for F2P players.

[Knyght]

NoxMorbis, on 07 November 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

I could care less what your opinion is on this.

1. Learn to English, please. Could care less indeed.
2. If you don't care about anyone else's opinion, why are you whining on a public forum?

[Knyght]

MadMadness, on 07 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

I'll tell you another thing. I've never seen ANY beta that accepted users money(Not counting Diablo 3).

I agree with the majority of your post. However, Dota 2, Tribes Ascend, Hawken, Planetside 2, many others and the myriad of kickstarter projects offering beta in exchange for cash only serve to prove that you don't play enough games to know how the game industry works right now in regards to betas.

[Aym]

Ramses2020, on 07 November 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

1.4 is WAY too low, IMO. Furthermore, I don't know whether that number reflects heat dissipation values, heat capacity, or both. One thing for sure is that assault mechs are always better off using singles than "doubles".

I'd like a number higher than 1.4 but I pilot an Atlas a lot, I know my Jenny benefits from 1.4 and I do believe 2.0 would have been too powerful on her so....
The heat capacity one is VERY interesting though and I would like to know the answer as well. It's not a big deal but would be interesting for theory-crafting.

[Bagheera]

Arcturious, on 07 November 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

The only way though to prove if this is what the OP is describing or if they have found a bug is for them to post up an exact list of all equipment they are trying to allocate.

IE: 3x medium lasers, 1x XL300 engine, 1x UAC5, 4x ammo, 1x AMS, 1x AMS ammo etc

Yeah. I don't think I have found a bug in the slots themselves, but a side effect in how their allocation is prioritized. The number of available slots remains the same in my two scenarios. I think it is more a minor annoyance in the priority (to a given section) that dynamic slots are allocated and then the priority in which they are locked out (no longer dynamic). If I add the engine last, I can get 1 more DHS than I can if I try to add DHS or other equipment while the engine is mounted.

Bear in mind that this is not a finished build, going to DHS gave me slot vs. weight problems that I have not worked out, but here is what I am working with:

HBK-4SP, Endo, DHS, 260XL

2xsrm6 with artemis
2x case (each torso)
AMS and 1 DHS in the left torso
1 DHS in the right torso
2 SL, 1 AMS ammo, 1 SRM ammo in the right arm (4 slots available for either structure or 1DHS + 1 structure)
2SL, 1 AMS ammo, 2 SRM ammo in the left arm (3 slots available either for structure or 1 DHS)

Now. If I leave the engine in place, and add a heat sink to either arm, the dynamic slots in the remaining arm lock down, while dynamic slots in 1 leg remain dynamic and a second leg remains empty.

If I remove the engine, add a DHS to each arm, then put the engine back, all of my remaining slots fill with locked "dynamic" structure slots. Both legs, CT, head, and the remaining slots peppered in there. Interestingly, if I remove a DHS from one of the arms, without removing the engine, I cannot replace the DHS were I just took it from.


Aaaannnndd mystery solved:

So I did find a bug, but not the one I thought. I added up the structural slots in the "add the engine last" scenario. There were only 10. There should be 14. When I checked the mech again with the "add stuff with engine mounted" there were 14, as there should be.

So, it seems with the 4sp, one can stuff dynamic slots into oblivion by adding the engine last. Anyone care to test this on additional mechs?

Edited by Bagheera, 07 November 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karyu, on 07 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

emis upgrades each individual launcher and some of us would like to run upgraded LRMs in conjunction with regular SRMs.
Double (1.4) Heat Sinks – Thank you Jesus. I think you guys made the right choice by dropping them to 140%. Before realizing that the engine HS weren’t upgrading I may have disagreed but now that that is fixed, I can imagine how ridiculous true DHS would have been. I can currently run all my old builds with DHS without adding a single heatsink other than the ones included in the engine. DHS is making extremely scary builds viable (6 SRM6 Catapult for example). Most LRM boats can fire completely non stop until they run out of ammo.

Bottom Line on DHS – 1.4 feels like a good spot. Assaults feel like they are at a disadvantage though due to 3 crits. Have you considered dropping them to 2 crits now?

DHS at a 2.0 rate were a requirement to make future mechs work. This will invalidate stock mechs even further. They already have too little heat dissipation now, but it will get worse with the changes.

There are 3 ways to deal with:
1) Give us 2.0 rate DHS. If necessary, lower the heat capacity of such mechs - that would limit their ability to alpha strike, but allow them still to sustain good fire rates and recover quickly from high heat levels.
2) Modifiy all DHS dependent stock mechs so they produce less heat (in line with the reduced heat dissipation)
3) Modify the weapons that lead to those stock mechs needing DHS in the first place so they need less heat (possibly also "nerfing" other features of them so they are still "fair".)

The Awesome 9M already is the perfect example. With the 1.4HS, he has basically the same heat dissipation and heat capacity as a Awesome 8Q. But he has ER PPCs that produce 3 more heat each per shot. He will basically overheat with the second volley, and it will take 10 seconds to cool off all that heat and fire another volley. In the same time, 3 AC/10 just with engine heat sinks could have fired 4-4 times for 120 to 150 damage.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 November 2012 - 11:32 PM.

[Asmosis]

It doesnt matter where they are because they are ignored for critical hits anyway. If you want a DHS in your torso and you have 3 empty leg slots, it'll move dynamic components to your legs instead.

If it only shows 2 white dynamic then that means theres only 2 empty crit slots left on your entire mech. The whole thing is working perfectly.

It would be a bug if you had nothing in your legs, but still couldnt put a DHS or something into a torso/arm section made up of dynamic parts. As for bugs in the loadout, lag can be a factor there. I've loaded two XL engines into the same mech since my client didnt register the first one, when i logged out/in again i was at 78/65 tons, took engine out showed nothing, logged out/in again and engine was there.

Edited by Asmosis, 07 November 2012 - 11:34 PM.

[grayson marik]

AlixX, on 07 November 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

You knew this matchmaking phase was coming. Just come back in 2 weeks. Premade war can finally begin then. That will be a lot of fun!

Well, would be even more fun if not only premade vs premade would be matched but if you could invite an other premade to play against yours... that would finally enable organized wargaming... ;-)

[Bagheera]

Read the edit.

What I was experiencing was a result of being able to add more gear than crit slots would allow by shifting dynamic slots by adding the engine to a mech last.


Edit:

Confirmed. By adding the engine last, I can squeeze out anywhere from 1-4 slots over what should be possible with endo on that mech. Meaning that I am left over with 10-13 "structure slots" which is less than the required 14 for endo steel.

Edited by Bagheera, 08 November 2012 - 12:01 AM.

[Frenchtoastman]

One of the October patches pretty much doubled repair/rearm costs along with an ever so slight boost in the bonus for things like salvage after a match. I've heard non-founders can lose money in an Atlas. XL engines also add a terrible amount to your repair bill.

I seem to remember a dev promise to tone down the harsh r/r billing a few weeks ago, but it looks like that didn't happen.

Edited by Frenchtoastman, 07 November 2012 - 11:42 PM.

[CobaltFire]

I rarely lose money even if I take into account the Founder's bonus, but I see your point regarding taking forever to save up for a bigger mech.

Note that all the advanced tech hurts to repair. It is not unusual for my CN9-D (ES, DHS, AIV, XL) to lose over 50k on a hard fought loss (ammo depletion and heavy repairs).

The only answer I have to that is that the game needs to make money. A long grind encourages those of us with more money than time to spend a bit to shorten that grind, while allowing those without the means an open access to the content (albeit at a time cost).

If this time cost was reduced then there would be less (or if dropped too low, no) money coming in. At some point that would either shorten the lifespan of the game or kill it immediately.

I think the subscription option is a fantastic way to offset this. Buy it when you have some time to play and make it work for you that way. Alternatively they have introduced a mech with a C-Bill bonus on par with the subscription. It may not be ideal (and it is silly expensive), but it IS available.

I sincerely hope they offer another Founder's like deal soon, perhaps at a reduced benefit (Founders gained 150-200% of their spending in benefits). I know that if they continue working on the issues in good faith there are a few of us who would partake (provided it was different mechs).

TL;DR: It's a necessary evil if you want to play a AAA MMO title with a free option.