1392 replies to this topic

[Comassion]

Yeah, if that's the case I'm glad they didn't delay the hotfix just to take care of it.

[THE 4thbreed]

Anea Firsch, on 07 November 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Spoken like a truly obtuse person with no willingness to be honest about what is seen in game. Obviously, you're on the good end of all that pug stomping and you're probably one of many who sit behind a mass load of LRMs and consider yourself a good player.... hahahahahaha Yeah, right!

Grow up! Just because one voices their opinion does not mean they lack skill or ability and even if they did, maybe they see something you're unable or refuse to see let alone, acknowledge. And when you toss out insults, you only prove yourself to being an obtuse and ignorant individual.

I have actually been on the receiving end of several pre-mades clobbering me with LRM barrage after LRM barrage. guess what I did the next game? I figured out a way to get around the missiles instead of doing the same thing over and over and over again with the same result.

as for telling what I see in a game, I see teams using the tools given to them to better put themselves in a position to win, and because they used those tools, the people who don't use them and claim they ruin the game and stomp, scream, cry, bang their heads on the ground and whine like five year olds to the Devs, until they can't take it anymore and they do what the five year olds want, but when they do it they realise that the complaints are stupid and they switch things back to the way they were in two weeks anyway.

And as for insults. Look who just called someone ingnorant and obtuse?

Edited by THE 4thbreed, 08 November 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[Scratx]

Hmm. I am going to paste here a post I made on a thread about rearming costs in the general forum... it is relevant, if not exactly on topic (it doesn't cover repairs, only rearm, and mainly aimed at a tangential problem that is being abused my many players for obvious reasons).

The solution presented would be a better model for ammunition costs than what is currently in place and would definitely favor F2P'ers.

Quote

Problem: 75% free reload rewards taking extra ammunition to the field and never spend a single c-bill more on reloads.
Effect: Missile boaters specifically (ballistics are in general cheap enough for this not to be an issue) that opt not to reload are still just about as combat effective as they otherwise would be and don't have to pay a single c-bill.


Proposed solution:
Step 1: Only 25% free reload. This means you have to reload if you boat ammunition. You can't take 40 tons of missiles to the field in order to have 10 tons of actual ammunition. Not without seriously gimping yourself.
Step 2: Prevent breaking the bank by cutting ammunition costs between 3-6x. 3x is minimum to keep the maximum bill the same as before the change. However, because the free reloading has undoubtedly skewed economic data, plus the fact there are a lot of missile builds that just aren't viable (and even entire mechs... Catapult A1) if missiles are left prohibitively expensive, reducing ammunition cost beyond is quite important.

I'd just about cut ballistics by 3x and missiles by ~5-6x. This makes boating missiles possible but you'll still be paying through the nose if you spam blindly.


Some math:

LRMs cost 30,060 , Streaks 54,000 and SRMs ~27,000 (I don't recall exact figures on SRMs)
Artemis doubles LRMs to 60,120 and SRMs to ~54,000 , I believe.

Cutting by 5x means LRMs go for 6,010 (Art 12,020), Streaks for 10,800 and SRMs for ~5,400 (Srt 10,800). Per ton.

And full reloading means you'd only pay 75% of that. So, how do numbers stack if you had 25% reload?

4 tons of LRM: ~18k (36k Art)
6 tons of LRM: ~27k (54k Art)
10 tons of LRM: ~45k (90k Art)

Now, can you seriously tell me these prices are unreasonable and bank-breaking? Yeah, if you boat Artemis with 8+ tons you sure better win consistently, but even 10 tons of regular LRMs are not going to be that big an issue for a free player. Not if he actually wins a decent amount of matches. (and frankly if you want to maximize c-bill returns, why are you using missiles? )

This also actually means an A1 catapult, which has NO option but to use missiles, is actually viable for a free player.

[Lokust]

That's real big of you to do that.

[Gabz]

+1 to all of the above

[Daekar]

awww... is somebody ******** their I-Win button is gone now? They're right where they should have been all along. In this kind of game it's BAD design to have them any more than they are. Range + Lock means that a sacrifice must be made in effective damage, or it totally breaks the game. Get in there and try the new system, and realize that missile boats in a balanced game are specialized units fewer in number. Anything else is broken.

[Kobura]

thread obsolete, goodbye!

Thanks PGI.

[Xervitus]

Lokust, on 08 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

That's real big of you to do that.

You're right, we should gloss over idiocy and be complacent and accepting to people who act like children, especially when they attack others. Good idea, we are gonna have a great society some day....oh wait...

Edited by Xervitus, 08 November 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[T Hawk]

Xenroth, on 08 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

Yeah thanks that i have to shoot about 400-500 missiles now to kill an atlas!
And i just bought or should i say wasted, money for Artemis on my 2nd mech ...

Justice delivered.

[Kobura]

NoxMorbis, on 07 November 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

I hope they don't nerf them. They;re good.

just this alone (in reference to divebomb lrms) totally game-set-matches this whole thread

attitude evaluated, judgement prepared

your honor, we pronounce the defendant, lolzy.

*edit* Oh yea even my founder friend in his founder atlas on premium time with only 40 artemis tubes baarrrrrrely broke even on ammo

because uh its expensive have you noticed

that is uh. listed. oh well. defendant also pronounced circumstantially impaired due to imbibing excessive exploits

Edited by Kobura, 08 November 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[Kalathin]

Just wanted to say thank you to the dev team for their efforts. Today's hot fix seems to have addressed the balance issues with LRM's and despite the DHS rebalance I am running far more efficient on all builds than ever before! GREAT JOB. And on a side note, people please try to remember that we are Beta testing an in finished product. There WILL be bugs and there WILL be balance issues. That is what we are playing to find. So please quit with the hate and rage over a very temporary game state. And also founders please try to remember that the money paid for the founders program was a donation to help developers fund the very game we are testing. The mechs MC and premium time were all rewards for the donation. That money did not buy these items, they were gifted. So please stop with the "you ruined MechWarrior!!! I want a refund!" I'm just asking people to have some grace and patience and provide constructive technical feedback and try not throw online tantrums. Thank you and again thank You dev team!

[XtremeLord]

getting better except mech die without internal being destroyed

[Roadkill]

Scratx, on 08 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Hmm. I am going to paste here a post I made on a thread about rearming costs in the general forum... it is relevant, if not exactly on topic (it doesn't cover repairs, only rearm, and mainly aimed at a tangential problem that is being abused my many players for obvious reasons).

The solution presented would be a better model for ammunition costs than what is currently in place and would definitely favor F2P'ers.

Dropping the free reload to 25% means it is useless for its (presumed) intended purpose - to allow you to continue to use your custom Mech even if you don't have the cash to rearm and repair it. However I think that dropping it to 50% and then adjusting the price reduction on missile ammo might preserve that intent while also accomplishing your goal.

My DDC Atlas carries 10 tons of ammo. I can get by with 7.5 tons pretty easily, so I rarely pay to re-arm it. I could probably get by with 5 tons in a pinch, but it'd be tough and would require me to be picky about my targets. Only having 2.5 tons of ammo would mean I couldn't effectively use that Mech, thus defeating the purpose of the free ammo reload.

[GL Chozo4]

Jyi, on 08 November 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Should figure it would be the JENNER PILOT making comments like these. Raven doesn't even go over 115 kph, not even with the biggest engine it can fit, until you unlock your speed tweak, in which case it'll go 121 kph.

I couldn't help but jump in on this but my raven begs to differ with its' top speed of 146.5kph. ^.~

Edited by GL Chozo4, 08 November 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[Mason Grimm]

Suskis, on 08 November 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

LRMS are now a joke. They were 200% as effective. Now they are 30%.
Is it THAT hard to calibrate them to 100%?

Actually no they are 170% as effective as they were originally... DOWN 30% from the 200% before.

[Elder Thorn]

XtremeLord, on 08 November 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

getting better except mech die without internal being destroyed

one at a time my friend, one at a time.
The LRMs were a very important issue, at least from my point of view and from what i understood from others. Now for the rest.

[Gallowglas]

BunnyBacon, on 08 November 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Im not a fan of running LRM boats but i think that LRM's where perfect before this hot patch. People just cant deal with having them be good because they dont have the skill to not get hit by them so they complain until you guys Nerf them when the problem wasnt with LRM's, it was with peoples lack of piloting abilities.

I wholeheartedly disagree. With Artemis in place, they were off-the-charts broken. People were dying in 2-3 volleys with virtually no chance to evade the damage. Just to test, I switched to running an LRM 15 x 2 Cat with Artemis and I was killing mechs at an obscene rate. In many cases, I was killing charging mechs before they could get inside my range. It was producing very lopsided victories. That's not balanced. I believe the change to be thoroughly justified.

[Krono Arrius]

I just wanna hop on the thank you thread and congratulate the team on turning just enough to feel......right. I feel so good right now I'm gonna go take on a lance of Atlas.

[Taron]

What ever you say: LRM + Artemis IV are now EXACTLY working as they should

[Name60014]

So much conflicting data in this thread.

Some people say premades only make up like 10% of the base. But yet there are cries of continual pug-stomping. That's 10% stomping the 90%? LoL.

It's a team-based game, the only game mode we have is not deathmatch. So magically "wait 2 weeks", "its beta", "go cry moar", and "l2p" is the response.

What we probably have here is a bunch of premade players leaving because they can't 8 man. And a bunch of lone wolves leaving because of LRMs and pugstomps. And vice versa. It's potential money down the drain for the dev. Admittedly its a band-aid on a problem that has existed since the closed beta launched. Now we're going to have fewer people testing and the consensus is "good, leave, you don't want MWO to succeed".

Oddly enough there are still workarounds to launch an 8 man.

This isn't even a Beta situation. It's a band-aid. Are they mining more data from a 4 man cap? No? Well that's fine, just wait 2 more weeks. People who want to PuG can PuG. And people who want to premade with people of their choice can choke on it.

And its not about premades wanting to take on PuGs. There's only so much you can glean from rolling over 8 disorganized players. And PuGs aren't just automagically working as a cohesive unit so its a coordinated premade vs x number of PuGs at varying skill levels in a team game.

The lack of proper MM implementation from the get-go is the problem; not players who decide they don't want to play after phase 1 was slapped on. Hasn't nearly everyone from closed complained about how MM from the moment they knew enough about the game to know that it was broken?