46 replies to this topic

[xRaeder]

Daisu Saikoro, on 15 January 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

All you guys with your should's.

Btw, I don't know how technically challenged whatever those acronyms you spouted were.

You Alt-F4 because you had a hard time adjusting to the game and then you stopped playing? Sounds unfortunate. Very unfortunate.

My skill level is fine actually. The game is just stupid and so small minded and stale. Nothing significant has changed as far as doing BT justice.

[Dimestore]

If you bother to look, 90% of the issues complained about have been explained with timelines, etc. Armchair programmers or trolls: hard to tell the difference sometimes.

http://mwomercs.com/...t-code-roadmap/
http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/

As for ECM:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1507364
aka they are bringing in other items that will balance against ECM over time (2 modules help that a little from the latest patch). Even just now there are multiple ways to balance.

<edited to reduce the snark in my reply, patience was light for non-MWO reasons>

Edited by Hax DB Header, 15 January 2013 - 03:35 PM.

[Tarman]

Daisu Saikoro, on 15 January 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Sir,

I do not understand why you choose to be a nasty curmudgeon. However, disrespecting someone and their profession is just obscenely tacky. Obscenely. Disrespectful and tacky.

And as for the rest...

Does it make you feel a bit better insulting a professional? Just curious.

You HAVE seen their track record? Enthusiasm for the game does not equal ability to deliver. There are reasons the "Now Hiring" button has been on the site since forever ago. They are treading water and it's been showing lately. Unless you feel that the netcode is "professional".

PGI literally do not have the correct numbers/types of people to provide the output needed to bring this thing up to snuff the way they need/want to. Their relatively poor handling of both programming and customer interaction do not engender goodwill in an increasingly frustrated community that would just like to fight giant robots, not continually deal with a host of long-unresolved issues.

No, the game isn't a write-off yet. Yes, it's potentially close to sliding off the road into a tree. This is like the "Hey, this steering feels really sketchy" part of the slide.

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

xRaeder, on 15 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

My skill level is fine actually. The game is just stupid and so small minded and stale. Nothing significant has changed as far as doing BT justice.

Maybe it's the people you're playing with.

The people can really help set the game playing experience.

[Livewyr]

They're not blind, they have selective vision/literacy.

[Jakob Knight]

Hax DB Header, on 15 January 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

As for ECM:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1507364
aka they are bringing in other items that will balance against ECM over time (2 modules help that a little from the latest patch). Even just now there are multiple ways to balance.

You must be joking. You -are- joking, right? The module that extends your sensor range, but not against ECM units (since you can't detect ECM units beyond 200m, it doesn't matter if you get an additional 10% does it)? The tracking decay module that will delay how long it takes for you to lose lock onto ECM units that you can't lock up in the first place? Those two modules?

No, there are no 'multiple ways' to balance, and the devs have shown the depth of their ineptitude in understanding the problem by claiming the range increase is a 'must have for those LRM units having trouble with ECM'. Their ideas of counters are anything that doesn't actually work, so why should we believe anything they say? The devs have proven unworthy to be listened to, so I don't see why you do.

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

Tarman, on 15 January 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

You HAVE seen their track record? Enthusiasm for the game does not equal ability to deliver. There are reasons the "Now Hiring" button has been on the site since forever ago. They are treading water and it's been showing lately. Unless you feel that the netcode is "professional".

PGI literally do not have the correct numbers/types of people to provide the output needed to bring this thing up to snuff the way they need/want to. Their relatively poor handling of both programming and customer interaction do not engender goodwill in an increasingly frustrated community that would just like to fight giant robots, not continually deal with a host of long-unresolved issues.

No, the game isn't a write-off yet. Yes, it's potentially close to sliding off the road into a tree. This is like the "Hey, this steering feels really sketchy" part of the slide.

Netcode.

Lights and fast moving mechs will always spread damage and be harder to kill. At least that's been my perception going into the game.

Until servers are rolled out internationally, latency and pings seem like they'll be an issue. Meaning its more than programming its also infrastructure.

What are the reasons that the Now Hiring button has been on the side forever now?

As a professional on this matter, may I ask, how many people would be adequate at this stage of development and how many members does the entity of PGI need in order to achieve what you feel would be the perfect number for their assorted departments?

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

Jakob Knight, on 15 January 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

You must be joking. You -are- joking, right? The module that extends your sensor range, but not against ECM units (since you can't detect ECM units beyond 200m, it doesn't matter if you get an additional 10% does it)? The tracking decay module that will delay how long it takes for you to lose lock onto ECM units that you can't lock up in the first place? Those two modules?

No, there are no 'multiple ways' to balance, and the devs have shown the depth of their ineptitude in understanding the problem by claiming the range increase is a 'must have for those LRM units having trouble with ECM'. Their ideas of counters are anything that doesn't actually work, so why should we believe anything they say? The devs have proven unworthy to be listened to, so I don't see why you do.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but once the ECM mech is canceled (say by another ecm mech) locks can then be created.

Perhaps this is to help after that is in play, so that the mech who is countering can shift back to disrupt and get back into protection?

Maybe?

[SilentWolff]

Alt F4 was getting outta hand. At least they addressed 1 important issue this patch.

[Mahws]

So they fixed the annoying bug that caused a game to not end if a player Alt+F4'd, forcing everyone to wait for a cap to finish the game, and people are complaining about it because they shouldn't have fixed a minor bug till they fixed a major one? This forums Internet rage will never cease to amaze me.

[Mikhalio]

themoob, on 15 January 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

... that no one else here noticed and is excited about this?



Take that Alt-F4ers!

It's pretty obvious they saw our concerns here, and did something about them. Yeah it may accidentally get a few players who are disconnecting honestly... but it's e-peen, no one cares.

This was to remove the keybind for Alt F4 to be used for the much promoted 3rd person mode. PGI listens to the community, and Alt F4 was a well overdue fix. Sadly, Alt F12 now works equally as well for leaving a game; Trolls, please adjust your new-player baiting accordingly.

[Rodder]

xRaeder, on 15 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

The current solution hurts people that legitimately disconnect... I've had 5 kills and had the game CTD on me... even SWTOR and STO never did that to me... and we all know how technically challenged those games were.

That just made me lol

I needed 5 or 6 tries to complete esseless cause my client crashed all the time. SW TOR is one of the worst product in gaming history, which made me stop paying because they cant fix their performance issues and constant client crashes.

Compared to TOR MWO is pure gold.

[Dimestore]

Jakob Knight, on 15 January 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

You must be joking. You -are- joking, right? The module that extends your sensor range, but not against ECM units (since you can't detect ECM units beyond 200m, it doesn't matter if you get an additional 10% does it)? The tracking decay module that will delay how long it takes for you to lose lock onto ECM units that you can't lock up in the first place? Those two modules?

No, there are no 'multiple ways' to balance, and the devs have shown the depth of their ineptitude in understanding the problem by claiming the range increase is a 'must have for those LRM units having trouble with ECM'. Their ideas of counters are anything that doesn't actually work, so why should we believe anything they say? The devs have proven unworthy to be listened to, so I don't see why you do.

Sigh, you really need to improve your reading skills: ECM doesn't reduce lock-on range to 200 meters, it reduces it to 20% of full range. If you BAP and/or range extender modules then your base range is larger than 1000m so your lock-on range will be higher than 200m.

[Void Angel]

Hax DB Header, on 15 January 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

Sigh, you really need to improve your reading skills: ECM doesn't reduce lock-on range to 200 meters, it reduces it to 20% of full range. If you BAP and/or range extender modules then your base range is larger than 1000m so your lock-on range will be higher than 200m.

It's mathemagical!

[Team Leader]

Void Angel, on 15 January 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

I kinda put Wall Street embezzlers and people who rage about Wall Street embezzlers in the same boat. Just different sides of the same coin.

I kinda put starving African children and people who complain about starving African children in the same boat. Just different sides of the same coin.

[Roheryn]

Hax DB Header, on 15 January 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

Sigh, you really need to improve your reading skills: ECM doesn't reduce lock-on range to 200 meters, it reduces it to 20% of full range. If you BAP and/or range extender modules then your base range is larger than 1000m so your lock-on range will be higher than 200m.

Except that you are totally wrong. This is a direct quote from the Devs about ECM:

• Enemy Mechs will have to come within 1/4 the normal distance (200 m instead of 800 m, by default) for hidden Mechs to show up on their battlegrid and HUD.
  
  • The Beagle Active Probe is of no use in extending this range.

By all means though keep on going with thinking you know better than everyone else.

[Tarman]

Daisu Saikoro, on 15 January 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Netcode.

Lights and fast moving mechs will always spread damage and be harder to kill. At least that's been my perception going into the game.

Until servers are rolled out internationally, latency and pings seem like they'll be an issue. Meaning its more than programming its also infrastructure.

What are the reasons that the Now Hiring button has been on the side forever now?

As a professional on this matter, may I ask, how many people would be adequate at this stage of development and how many members does the entity of PGI need in order to achieve what you feel would be the perfect number for their assorted departments?

Netcode. Thanks for bringing up one of the primary reasons they need to hire more staff, they do not have a top guy in this area. Netcode issues are on top of server issues, thus adding a potentially fixable problem to the permanent issue of living really far away from the server.

Maybe if they were offering new employees a decent package they'd have someone. As it is, generally when a studio needs to look this hard for employees, nobody wants to work there for a reason. Maybe the benefit package is terrible. It could even be possible that people don't want to sign on with the company even remotely associated with some really weak previous efforts in the gaming industry. Signing on to a company you don't believe will be around long isn't good sense. I'm not judging them on past merits myself but I'm also not betting my livelihood on their continued existence.

Also, dial down your False Graciousness and Pseudo-deference to my fake authority, on the last sentence there, it's stilted-sounding and does little to enhance your post or position. If you're going to play Forum, you need a better toolkit than that.

[Void Angel]

Roheryn, resorting to straw man attacks against your opponent does not impress me with your reading level, you should know. Nor does deliberately ignoring the real point of his objection in order to harp on a non-critical error. Both of these are forms of lying, which destroy your credibility.

You're right that the Beagle doesn't increase sensor range. /golfclap. He's right that you can still use sensor modules to increase your range - and that this means your effective sensor range is higher than 200m. So he doesn't think he "knows better than everyone else," he just thinks he knows better than you and Jakob. And he's right:

Jakob Knight, on 15 January 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

You must be joking. You -are- joking, right? The module that extends your sensor range, but not against ECM units (since you can't detect ECM units beyond 200m, it doesn't matter if you get an additional 10% does it)? The tracking decay module that will delay how long it takes for you to lose lock onto ECM units that you can't lock up in the first place? Those two modules?

No, there are no 'multiple ways' to balance, and the devs have shown the depth of their ineptitude in understanding the problem by claiming the range increase is a 'must have for those LRM units having trouble with ECM'. Their ideas of counters are anything that doesn't actually work, so why should we believe anything they say? The devs have proven unworthy to be listened to, so I don't see why you do.

This claim is false: it is factually incorrect and therefore cannot possibly be true. First, there are indeed multiple counters to ECM. ECM itself is, of course, a counter, but TAG is an effective counter as well. The range modules are also partial counters, as they increase the lock-on range to a more workable distance beyond the ECM bubble. So the latter part of this statement is completely wrong.

The former paragraph of this angry diatribe is also totally incorrect. The lock-on range for 'mechs targeting ECM is not 200m. According to the very Dev statement you quoted, it is 25% of the normal distance; 200m applies only to the default 800m sensor range Thus, adding 25% to the base sensor range will extend lock-on distance to 250m if the result is calculated multiplicatively, as is the norm. Personally, I think that the penalty and bonuses should interact additively ([1 -.75 +.25]*800) which would give us a 400m lock-on range, but this is immaterial. The fact is that he did not argue that the extra 50m range was unhelpful; he (and you) argued that it was nonexistent.

Edited by Void Angel, 15 January 2013 - 04:57 PM.

[Roheryn]

Void Angel, on 15 January 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Roheryn, resorting to straw man attacks against your opponent does not impress me with your reading level, you should know. Nor does deliberately ignoring the real point of his objection in order to harp on a non-critical error. Both of these are forms of lying, which destroy your credibility.

You're right that the Beagle doesn't increase sensor range. /golfclap. He's right that you can still use sensor modules to increase your range - and that this means your effective sensor range is higher than 200m. So he doesn't think he "knows better than everyone else," he just thinks he knows better than you and Jakob. And he's right:
This claim is false: it is factually incorrect and therefore cannot possibly be true. First, there are indeed multiple counters to ECM. ECM itself is, of course, a counter, but TAG is an effective counter as well. The range modules are also partial counters, as they increase the lock-on range to a more workable distance beyond the ECM bubble. So the latter part of this statement is completely wrong.

The former paragraph of this angry diatribe is also totally incorrect. The lock-on range for 'mechs targeting ECM is not 200m. According to the very Dev statement you quoted, it is 25% of the normal distance; 200m applies only to the default 800m sensor range Thus, adding 25% to the base sensor range will extend lock-on distance to 250m if the result is calculated multiplicatively, as is the norm. Personally, I think that the penalty and bonuses should interact additively ([1 -.75 +.25]*800) which would give us a 400m lock-on range, but this is immaterial. The fact is that he did not argue that the extra 50m range was unhelpful; he (and you) argued that it was nonexistent.

BAP and Sensor Range mods do not allow you to target outside of 200m. Try it in game and then also reference the dev statements saying so. The devs said:

• The Beagle Active Probe is of no use in extending this range.

I have personally tested that sensor range mods have no effect on an ecm cloaked mech.

The way you claim it should work is what I believe should happen however it simply does not. The devs have made it so that regardless of what you add to your mech in terms of sensor range boosters (Bap or modules) you simply do not lock a target past 200m.

[Void Angel]

Finding a bug does not make your claim correct; it makes the bug need fixing.

Also, you should stop quoting dev statements in a sloppy way; it looks as if you might be taking a statement about Beagle and applying it to sensor range in general - which is not what the Dev you're quoting said. I do not think this was your intention, but you should be perhaps less... hasty... in hammering out a response.

Both the quoted statement AND the patch notes indicate that ECM is supposed to work on your actual sensor range, not a static 200m distance. Thus, this is a bug and not a design decision - your argument, and Jakob's, is still incorrect.

Edited by Void Angel, 15 January 2013 - 05:19 PM.