273 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

I don't have the ignorance here sir. You are not able to look past the word err. I used the word and the phrase exactly as it was used with "erring on the side of caution" (doing things that are safe not risky)

'Erring on the side of balance' is doing things so no one thing stands out over another. So Brawling, Fire Support, Snipers & Scouts all have a level playing field. Energy Ballistic & Missiles weapons are all equally dangerous.

It isn't so difficult to understand... really.

[Zaptruder]

zorak ramone, on 17 April 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Instead of just comoplaining, here are some suggestions on how to fix this:
-Restore SRM damage to 2.5 per missile, but keep splash out untill they can fix it
-Reduce the nullification effect of ECM on SSRMs and LRMs (discussion for another thread)
-Reduce heat on the AC20 and AC10 by half
-Drop ML heat by 1 point

Now you have a series of viable short range weapons that have actual advantages over their long and mid ranged counterparts.

Agreed @ SRMs at least in spirit. In practice... well actually I don't quite understand why SRMs can't just remove splash damage. I understand LRMs have a more complicated tracking issue that creates a clustering of damage around the CT without splash damage... but I can't see how that affects SRMs? Maybe through SSRMs...

If that is the element that is keeping SRMs from been buffed to a straight 2.5 without splash, then at least buff the current numbers by... 15%. It's a significant amount, but not so potent that you'll start seeing splat cats everywhere again.

Disagreed at ECM nullification effect. People that want this simply don't remember the game pre-ecm. It wasn't pretty. I think the game has done a great deal to reduce the power of ECM and increase the incentives for playing mechs that don't have ECM. At this time, the meta balance of ECM is fine (1-2 ECM mechs per side per match).

Disagreed at AC/10 - AC/20... Heat isn't the issue with the AC10. Simply that its function falls between multiple stools. Buff its damage. Make it more desirable to use. 12 damage I think feels like the right amount. AC20... 1 less heat couldn't hurt. But it doesn't really need it to be honest. It's an extraordinarily potent close ranged weapon.

Disagreed at ML... MLs are still good staple energy weapons. Excellent value for a 1T, 1C item. But heat isn't their real problem (except on the sway back) - it's that they're opportunity cost expensive. Why have a ML, when that same slot could take a LL or a PPC? Buff its damage a mote (5.5 vs 5)... which when paired with other brawling/DPS weapons help to swing balance back in favour of more brawling mechs and brawling engagements, while still leaving a sniper build or two relevant on a team.

[Zaptruder]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

I don't have the ignorance here sir. You are not able to look past the word err. I used the word and the phrase exactly as it was used with "erring on the side of caution" (doing things that are safe not risky)

'Erring on the side of balance' is doing things so no one thing stands out over another. So Brawling, Fire Support, Snipers & Scouts all have a level playing field. Energy Ballistic & Missiles weapons are all equally dangerous.

It isn't so difficult to understand... really.

I'm not able to look past the incorrect usage of the word err, because it's you who brought it to attention with your erroneous correction of my usage in the first place.

If you look back in the original post I made (or the one that kicked off this tangent), you'll find that I state that balancing all weapons correctly is ideal (desirable and what should be done). So in that context, "to err on the side of brawling" means that, if they must have a degree of slop in the balancing, for whatever reason, then it should favour brawling.

There's little that draws my ire more than been corrected by someone with wrong information.

To err... or to make a mistake, in favour of correct balancing (the target goal) is a meaningless statement, because it's better stated as*: They should make the time and effort to get the balancing right, rather than making mistakes in balancing.

*as in it would allow for greater comprehension, and not be the incorrect usage of err.

Spoiler

balance is not an appropriate substitution for caution - because caution isn't the goal in the circumstances that people use the phrase: To err on the side of caution.

Which is an obvious and unhelpful statement to make - because everyone that's remotely rational wants balancing to be done right.

As I stated before... making such an obvious statement simply implies that one is petulant and entitled, not given to compromise in a realistic fashion. Alternatively, it could imply - let's not make balancing changes until they're sure whatever changes they are going to make... will balance the game - in which case I roundly disagree, because it means in the mean time, we're spending a great deal of time playing an unbalanced, and essentially broken game while we wait for their 'major balance fix' to get into the game - to no guarantee that it'll do what they intend it to do. In this case, as I've said elsewhere, they would benefit from a faster iteration on smaller easier changes.

Jigger weapon values 0.5-1 points at a time and see how the community reacts on a weekly basis.

Edited by Zaptruder, 17 April 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[PaladinXIII]

Mesosaurus, on 17 April 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Why does this always happen?

Because every time we complain and the devs try to balance weapons, someone finds a way to tip the scales in their favor.

After playing a few rounds last night I applaud the devs for the ballistic state rewind and actually being able to blow up lights with SRMS and AC rounds without leading like crazy, as well as the fix to fire an AC round or PPC round without any delay, but what was saddening was that with half the team usually being highlanders (it just came out, that part doesn't bother me) not one used or had installed the stock LRM20 and usually 2 or 3 of the Highlanders used the PPC/Gauss build. Before the next post informs me that the LRM20 is 10 tons of "useless" weight plus the tons needed for ammo, I will say "I know that." But imagine if LRMs did their original damage or the current damage was bumped up to 1 damage per missile, how many Highlander owners would make room for LRMs?

What sucks and what I am getting at is how one weapon or weapon type becomes "OP" and everyone cries about it until something is done and then another weapons becomes "OP" thus continuing the cycle of suck. 1 Gauss or 1 PPC by itself is not deadly but when we start putting more than one or combine the PPCs with the Gauss, everything turns into "holyshitfuckballs!!! this ridiculous!" Yeah, the devs are probably going to fix LRMs or nerf PPCs and Gausses but then someone else is going to find the "better build" and in the end, meta and the player mindset still control the game. Until we change that, we can nerf everything all we want, but everyone still wants to win and will build whatever mechs make it easier to do so.

"Irony: giving mechs double armor to make matches longer only for the players to make builds to make matches shorter."

[Joseph Mallan]

I agree with Zap on most points and any that I disagree on are minor at best! +1!

[zorak ramone]

Zaptruder, on 17 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

Disagreed at ECM nullification effect. People that want this simply don't remember the game pre-ecm. It wasn't pretty. I think the game has done a great deal to reduce the power of ECM and increase the incentives for playing mechs that don't have ECM. At this time, the meta balance of ECM is fine (1-2 ECM mechs per side per match).

I've been in this since the first month of closed beta. I remember what it was like before, and immediately after the introduction of ECM.

ECM makes locking weapons prohibitively hard to balance because it creates situations where the weapon is either vastly overpowered in one situation, or completely worthless in another. Pre nerf, when ECM was on the field, SSRMs were dominant and LRMs were useable. When ECM is on the field they become worthless. There is no other weapon in this game that has the potential to swing like that.

What they need to do, at least for SSRMs, is change their mechanics to make them require aiming, and eliminate ECM's blockign effect on them.

Quote

Disagreed at AC/10 - AC/20... Heat isn't the issue with the AC10. Simply that its function falls between multiple stools. Buff its damage. Make it more desirable to use. 12 damage I think feels like the right amount. AC20... 1 less heat couldn't hurt. But it doesn't really need it to be honest. It's an extraordinarily potent close ranged weapon.

You're agreeing with me without realizing it. All you're doing is increasing the damage/heat ratio for both weapons in different ways. I'm just suggesting that you do it by dropping the heat, although in effort posts in the past I've sugested buffing damage.

The problem with the AC20 is that, while in isolation its a good weapon, as part of a mech with multiple weapon systems, it fails because of heat. The AC20 adds ~5 DPS at close range, with a cost of ~2.5 HPS. The GR, UAC5, and AC5 can, on a per tonnage basis add comparable DPS, but at a much lower cost in HPS, meaning that you can use you're other weapons more. The AC20 limits your ability to use your other weapons, and makes the mech overall weaker. Oh yeah, and the GR/UAC/AC5 also can do their damage at much longer ranges.

The AC10 has the same problems, and its all about heat. Heat is a much bigger factor in MWO due to the faster recycle times and weaker DHS. People will stop using AC20s once the novelty of the dual AC20 jagermech wears off.

Quote

Disagreed at ML... MLs are still good staple energy weapons. Excellent value for a 1T, 1C item. But heat isn't their real problem (except on the sway back) - it's that they're opportunity cost expensive. Why have a ML, when that same slot could take a LL or a PPC? Buff its damage a mote (5.5 vs 5)... which when paired with other brawling/DPS weapons help to swing balance back in favour of more brawling mechs and brawling engagements, while still leaving a sniper build or two relevant on a team.

Again, you're agreeing with me without realizing it. The opportunity cost is the main issue. On most mechs, energy hardpoints are limiting (especially in the current meta with PPC/GR assaults that usually have more tons than hardpoints to fill them with). Currently, MLs do not offer better damage/heat than PPCs, so they're not even worth using as backup weapons. They're only useful on dedicated infighters with lots of energy HPs to spare. No, they're not worthless, but their worth relative to the PPC makes the the PPC more powerful and shifts the meta to PPC/GR heavies/assaults.

[Joseph Mallan]

Zaptruder, on 17 April 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

I'm not able to look past the incorrect usage of the word err, because it's you who brought it to attention with your erroneous correction of my usage in the first place

Erring on the side of caution!
Are you making a mistake being cautious?

[Fate 6]

Chavette, on 16 April 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

No worries, you'll get plummeted down to your proper ELO fast enough, so you can rage about LRMs and splatcats.

I don't think you understand how the Elo system is implemented in this game.

[Roland]

zorak ramone, on 17 April 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Instead of just comoplaining, here are some suggestions on how to fix this:
-Restore SRM damage to 2.5 per missile, but keep splash out untill they can fix it
-Reduce the nullification effect of ECM on SSRMs and LRMs (discussion for another thread)
-Reduce heat on the AC20 and AC10 by half
-Drop ML heat by 1 point

Now you have a series of viable short range weapons that have actual advantages over their long and mid ranged counterparts.

Regarding these changes:
1) I could see buffing the SRM damage back up I suppose, although they need to address the underlying issue which was causing them to do upwards of 15 damage per missile to certain targets.
2) I'm not sure how this could be implemented, since it essentially means you saying ECM no longer would do anything at all. Personally, I think there are better ways to fix LRM's, but as you said, another thread.
3) Reducing the heat on the AC's seems like it's trivial.. With double heat sinks, I don't find either of them to be generating much heat. I guess (?) you could potentially run more energy weapons with them if they made less heat, but the difference would be minimal. A better solution is to up the damage on AC's, I think.
4) I think I could support reverting the medium and small lasers back to their earlier closed beta stats. They were originally nerfed because they were totally dominant, but that's largely because all the other weapons were trash due to other facets of the game.


Number 4 there is really key. Given how much other weapons have improved, largely as a result of netcode improvements, I think bumping the medium and small lasers back up to their previous stats is at least worth trying. They'll become stronger as infight weapons, but now that there are totally viable long range beat down weapons, having stronger short range weapons is something we shouldn't be afraid of any more.

[Joseph Mallan]

PaladinXIII, on 17 April 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

"Irony: giving mechs double armor to make matches longer only for the players to make builds to make matches shorter."

Duuuuude! Good catch!

[Royalewithcheese]

zorak ramone, on 17 April 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

The problem with the AC20 is that, while in isolation its a good weapon, as part of a mech with multiple weapon systems, it fails because of heat. The AC20 adds ~5 DPS at close range, with a cost of ~2.5 HPS. The GR, UAC5, and AC5 can, on a per tonnage basis add comparable DPS, but at a much lower cost in HPS, meaning that you can use you're other weapons more. The AC20 limits your ability to use your other weapons, and makes the mech overall weaker. Oh yeah, and the GR/UAC/AC5 also can do their damage at much longer ranges.

The AC/20 brings 20-40 pinpoint damage to the table, which is why competitive brawler configs run it. Pinpoint alpha > DPS in this game.

[Bagheera]

Mister Blastman, on 17 April 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

2. All autocannons

Just like in tabletop, also.

AC10s and AC20s do not have a minimum range in TT, only 2's and 5s.

[Verenus]

I agree with the OP, just played a few games (first for me after patch yesterday). I think the 10 or so games i played averaged 6 assaults every game, 4 of those highlanders and the few mechs that weren't assaults were CDA 2xERPPCs or some other sniper.

its just plain boring for a brawler if your entire team is 1km behind you poptarting, so i'm also gonna give this game a break.

[MustrumRidcully]

Zaptruder, on 17 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

Agreed @ SRMs at least in spirit. In practice... well actually I don't quite understand why SRMs can't just remove splash damage. I understand LRMs have a more complicated tracking issue that creates a clustering of damage around the CT without splash damage... but I can't see how that affects SRMs? Maybe through SSRMs...

If that is the element that is keeping SRMs from been buffed to a straight 2.5 without splash, then at least buff the current numbers by... 15%. It's a significant amount, but not so potent that you'll start seeing splat cats everywhere again.

Disagreed at ECM nullification effect. People that want this simply don't remember the game pre-ecm. It wasn't pretty. I think the game has done a great deal to reduce the power of ECM and increase the incentives for playing mechs that don't have ECM. At this time, the meta balance of ECM is fine (1-2 ECM mechs per side per match).

Disagreed at AC/10 - AC/20... Heat isn't the issue with the AC10. Simply that its function falls between multiple stools. Buff its damage. Make it more desirable to use. 12 damage I think feels like the right amount. AC20... 1 less heat couldn't hurt. But it doesn't really need it to be honest. It's an extraordinarily potent close ranged weapon.

Disagreed at ML... MLs are still good staple energy weapons. Excellent value for a 1T, 1C item. But heat isn't their real problem (except on the sway back) - it's that they're opportunity cost expensive. Why have a ML, when that same slot could take a LL or a PPC? Buff its damage a mote (5.5 vs 5)... which when paired with other brawling/DPS weapons help to swing balance back in favour of more brawling mechs and brawling engagements, while still leaving a sniper build or two relevant on a team.

The problem for the ML is probably primarily - it's good for its weight, but you have a lot of weight to fill on an Atlas, Stalker, or heck, even a Cataphract, and no mech (not even the Awesome) has actually enough energy hard points to do this. (The Awesome may be closest, but it directly competes with heavier assault mechs and has the barn-sized torso problem, which makes it overall a poor brawler).

That's why you need a powerful ballistic or missile in this mech. The Atlas could be fine with 6-7 energy slots and a single AC/20, or with 2 energy slots and 2 AC/20. He was fine with 1 AC/20, 2 Mediums and 3 SRM6.

And on the AC/10 - I agree, a heat change wouldn't really do much. More damage would work, but of course, that's unpossible, because AC/10 means in the mind of PGI that it must deal 10 damage per shot. So the only thing we could do is try changing its ROF. For a brawling weapon, that's probably fine (it's useless for sniping, and if the ROF is too high, it's dangerous for brawling, but 1 shot every 2 seconds should still work fine.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 17 April 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[TOGSolid]

GODzillaGSPB, on 17 April 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:

But that's an old story in my honest oppinion. LRMs where used before the nerf to a great extend and ECM was alive and kicking then. Since ECM does nothing to the damage and just effects whether you can fire at all or not...how does your argument hold up to that.

If it was bad before, why did so many people use it? Even before the unintentional super-buff before the nerf many many players were using it. Don't you remember?

If LRMs were competitive then the 8-man metagame would have reflected that. You almost never saw LRMs in 8 mans unless the team was just goofing off. Pub play really doesn't count for anything because hell, I still see Machine Guns in pub play but that doesn't mean they're good.

Most pubs are playing just to have fun meaning they'll use whatever they think is fun and/or easy without any regards for true min/maxing. 8 mans have been a PPC/Gauss ghetto for a long time now and that's the real indicator of the game's true balance.

Edited by TOGSolid, 17 April 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[zorak ramone]

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

3) Reducing the heat on the AC's seems like it's trivial.. With double heat sinks, I don't find either of them to be generating much heat. I guess (?) you could potentially run more energy weapons with them if they made less heat, but the difference would be minimal. A better solution is to up the damage on AC's, I think.

In builds like the 2xAC20 Jagermech, it wouldn't change anything because the heat of the AC20s isn't coming close to tapping into the full potential of the DHS. On every other build it would allow you to pack more/use more MLs and SRMs and/or it would allow you to use your long range energy weapons up close more. If the heat was lower, I would totally use AC10s and 20s on my Atlases/CTFs. Right now, GRs UACs and AC5s are just better choices because they let me use my other weapons more without sacrificing too much in DPS/alpha potential.

Quote

4) I think I could support reverting the medium and small lasers back to their earlier closed beta stats. They were originally nerfed because they were totally dominant, but that's largely because all the other weapons were trash due to other facets of the game.


Number 4 there is really key. Given how much other weapons have improved, largely as a result of netcode improvements, I think bumping the medium and small lasers back up to their previous stats is at least worth trying. They'll become stronger as infight weapons, but now that there are totally viable long range beat down weapons, having stronger short range weapons is something we shouldn't be afraid of any more.

This is exactly what I've been saying since the day they nerfed the MLs back in closed beta. This was back in the day when projectile weapons were MUCH slower and had a hit radius/projectile size of zero.

With state rewind in for projectiles, I almost took the leg clean off a jenner (another PPC and I would have), running laterally at 500m (minimum) with just a radar contact. There is no reason for MLs not to have their heat dropped now that projectile weapons are much more accurate.

[Klaus]

PGI needs to say something. The game is almost unplayable at the moment.

[RacerX]

I've been playing the last few days and I've got to say that the Highlander beast builds are getting me down. When they can core my mech with a single alpha then all I can say is adjustments need to be made.

However, there is another side to this discussion. I've seen another trend of late that has me worried. Folks tend to simply stand on a hill and trade fire. And then, when the whole enemy team takes thier turn ****** the poor sap we get discussions like this about how everything is OP.

A few months ago folks complained about the Catapult K2 with twin gauss being OP. To be fair the K2 with Guass is a walking cynder box these days. 90% gauss explosion rate with an XL engine is walking trouble so I not open to anymore OP discussion about this config. However, I still drive one and for the most part pretty effective at it. However, I'm no longer just charging in with guns blazing. I have to sit back, snipe, use cover to close, and then use my radar or someone else's radar lock to find weak enemies and then focus on that enemy. Some would call that kill stealing and some would call that team work. I'll leave that up for your interpretation. What I do know is the team that wins gets a bigger payout. Also, before folks accuse me of trolling games I have gone 3 on one before and come out on top not because I had twin gauss. It was because I played smarter than my opponents. They were also lucky that the ***** right next to me refused to help out so I am very lucky to have survived that fight. They almost got me.

So, what is my point? Adapt to the battlefield and adjust your strategy. If you are used to charging straight in and kicking some butt then you need to understand that you can't simply charge the enemy anymore. You need to be sneaky and use the battlefield to your advantage. It won't always work. And if someone jumps you with 2 ERPPCs, a Guass Rifle, and 3 SRM6's then you are just screwed unless you can get out of that situation fast. You guys are going to be in for a rude awakening when we go 12 on 12.

[Taemien]

KhanCipher, on 17 April 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

really... you're going to bring that arguement to the table, listen buddy i have to go heavy front bias armor on the highlander and even then a good 90% of the time i'm going to die to CT destruction even with trying to spread pinpoint damage.

honestly i think PPCs/ERPPCs need their TT heat back.

No you just need to learn to pilot a mech in combat. You're using the wrong mindset for combat if you're getting cored outright. Sorry your opponents are simply better than you.

Zyllos, on 17 April 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

You might be right (I think your not) but what about builds that need to face their target continue dealing damage?

Are all builds that have to do this bad?

Maybe I should torso twist when you shoot, but with a 4.0s CD on weapons, this is cutting about 25% of the DPS, which the build is technically already bad, even worse now.

That is the problem with weapon convergence. There is no balance between alpha strikes (all the benefits, no disadvantages) when compared with group firing weapons.

Is the only valid tactic in this game is to alpha strike so that you can torso twist away when someone else shoots at you?

Give me one good example that you would group fire PPCs and Gauss instead of alpha strike them, other than heat?

One example when not to use Alpha Strike? When I have Autocannons or Lasers equipped with those weapons. I don't bother using PPC/Gauss only boats. If you boat weapons you are gimping yourself. I use AC5s, Medium Lasers, and SRMs normally (usually medium lasers grouped with something else). And they have much faster than 4s cooldowns. My DPS isn't cut, but you know what? How much DPS do you do when dead? I can tell you, its Zero.

If your builds can't take on boats, then you have a problem. Either you didn't build your mech properly, don't know how to use it effectively, or both. Get your unit to help you, if they can't help, find another unit to help.

Hate to tell you all this, but you all aren't god's gift to mechwarrior. The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is you.

[Ranek Blackstone]

My DPS phracts have similar alphas to the poptarts, plus I have a better rate of fire and JJs to help out. You can almost hear the "aw crud" when they realize my entire alpha strike is ready a full second before theirs is.