73 replies to this topic

[zorak ramone]

Roland, on 18 April 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

I'd rather not, given that we have a large number of actual mechs to choose from. I'd rather you made your example using existing mechs that can be actually constructed. The reason for this is that the hardpoint limitations in existing mechs really does have something of a balancing effect. A 4P, for instance, can carry a bunch of medium lasers.. but it's also not super fast, and can't mount JJ's, etc.

So, I think it'd be most useful to work with real configurations if we're gonna discuss balance theory.

More mechs will be added and the spectrum of impossible configs will dwindle. Still, we can do that.

Ok, then take a similar example on the AWS-8Q. Mount 3xPPC, 300Std, and enough armor so that you have 3 tons left. Now, you have the choice of adding 3xML or 3 more DHS. If the 3xML produced only 3 heat, then you could conceivably switch to 2xPPC/3xML at close range for an increase in damage potential with almost no increase in heat. With MLs at 4 heat, 3xML/2xPPC make you run hotter and 2xML/2xPPC make you run just as hot, but with no increase in damage potential. You'd be better off just adding more DHS to use your PPCs more frequently.

Lower damage/heat on the MLs/SLs/etc. let energy-heavy configs fight at multiple ranges. Right now, energy heavy configs don't really have much to offer versus mixed energy/ballistic or energy/missile configs.

Quote

They are certainly much worse than before... but I absolutely disagree with the assertion that they are not worth taking.

Now, on an Atlas, that could certainly be the case. But that doesn't translate to lighter mechs. SRM's are still absolutely viable weapons on medium and light weight chassis. Cents and Hunchbacks still make effective use of them. Light mechs still use them effectively. They just aren't the "best weapon ever" that they were previously.

They were too powerful before due to the splash bug, but they went too far. The atlas lost alot of versatility and Cents/HBKs have been neutered. I haven't seen SRMs on a light for a long time now.

Quote

A big part of this is that the atlas just doesn't have the mobility to get into range easily for SRM use currently. And honestly, the missile hard points on the Atlas were traditionally used for LRM's to deal damage at LONG range, weren't they? This is really neither here nor there, but I think that part of the issue is that with highly accurate long range weapons, a huge slow moving target like the atlas may simply be less viable as pure brawlers... but this is not the same as saying SRM's are no longer viable as weapons at all.

Given that most fights usually end in a melee, the fight tends to come to the Atlas, not the other way around. Thats why I usually pack SRMs on my GR/PPC atlases.

Traditionally speaking, the Atlas has always packed LRMs and SRMs in stock configs.

As for the viability of SRMs, I'd say that pure brawlers were hurt more than mixed range configs. At least with a PPC/GR config, you can do lots of damage at range. For the brawler, you only barely outperform the GR/PPC sniper at close range ... and then you have to get there to begin with. The one saving grace of the SRM at this point is their high Alpha/tonnage ratio. Remember all that talk above about PPCs, MLs and switching groups? You can't do that now with MLs for reasons I explained, but you CAN do that with SRMs.

SRMs really need their damage back to 2.5 (or at least 2) per missile just like MLs, SLs, and their pulse counterparts need their heat dropped.

Edited by zorak ramone, 18 April 2013 - 01:37 PM.

[Ralgas]

heat is almost invalidated as a mechanic atm, the weps talked about are fine. erppc has become a little too efficient for it's range (so much so it's almost not worth considering a ppc against it).

but as some have pointed out these thread are double handing time consumers that could be better spent to the meta of the game until missiles get the hsr and dmg balance treatment.

[zorak ramone]

Roland made an awesome OP where he carefully analyzed and identified the current problem with the meta, and it deserves to be bumped.

There are way to many nonsense threads whining about PPC jump snipers for this one to be buried.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

I find myself in agreement with the OP. For a very long time, laser weapons were the only weapon (other than locking missiles) in which you could have a considerable chance of landing an effective quantity of damage, and that made them a dominant force. The changes that were made were completely necessary and effective at the time, however they currently hold lasers back compared to post-HSR ballistics. (At least in a direct-fire role.)

While I do certainly feel that the heat-production values of small and medium lasers are too high at the moment, especially for Lights. I don't feel that the LPL needs a damage increase, because technically it already has one. Compared to LLs, LPLs have only "1" more damage on paper. But the fact that the LPL deals five sets of two damage instead of substantially more sets of around 0.5 damage or so causes it to deal far more of it's total possible damage than a beam variant, which frankly, I do not believe are dealing damage correctly even now. But even against large, easy to strike targets, the amount of damage an LPL actually deals compared to its total damage is far higher than that of an LL. (I feel lucky if an LL deals even 5 against even easy to hit targets.)

This pulse vs beam "actual damage vs possible damage" issue is very much present on every tier of weapon sizes. If anything, PGI should consider reassessing the function and code of laser weapons, though I do feel heat totals need reduction for sub-large laser weapons, most especially the ML, MPL and SPL.

[Yokaiko]

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

However, I also feel that it has exposed some issues which will eventually degrade things. I expect that the current "everyone take a highlander" meta is gonna fade quickly, but still, I think that we need to look at how things have changed as a result of functional, modern netcode.

Now that the netcode seems to pretty much work correctly, long range direct fire weaponry is a valid and effective means to play the game. This is, without question, a good thing.

However, this means that it is time to revisit some of the previous balance changes that were made in an environment where long range direct fire was not really viable.

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Thus, I suggest the following changes to weaponry:
1) Medium lasers - Reduce heat back to the original value of 3
2) Small Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 1
3) Medium Pulse Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 4
4) Small Pulse Lasers - reduce heat back to the original value of 2
5) Large Pulse Lasers - Increase damage up to 12

Agree.

I'd also go one step further

Slas burn 1.25
Spl 0.75
Mlas burn at 1s range reduced to 180 (lets face it 540m out of a 1 ton 4 heat weapons is a bit much)
LPL I would leave at current heat and damage and match the range to a vanilla Large, 0.5 second burn
Match the ER to the LPL burn. For the extra heat trying to hold a beam at 700m is silly.

This accomplishes a couple things, fast brawlers HAVE to close mlas won't support zapping from 400m like it does now, with HSL in the game, those laser changes would essentially mean near insta-leg for lights, and mediums. It also stops -4Ps from going heat neutral and running around like CB.

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Note, I'm not talking about missile weapons here. While I feel that there are certain changes necessary, I feel that is a discussion to be had separately.

Yeah that is a big old mess.

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Back in closed beta, all of the netcode was basically borked. All of the long range weapons, with the exception of the gauss, were basically useless... and the gauss was largely only usable by folks with good pings. PPC's were much hotter, as were Large Lasers. Also, all of the maps were small, close quarters affairs.

This resulted in small and medium lasers being dominant weapons, especially on the limited chassis of the day which included the Jenner and the Hunchback 4P. Also, without engine/speed caps, you could make mechs that tooled around at extremely high speed (further exacerbating the netcode problems), capable of delivering fairly large alpha strikes against targets which were largely incapable of returning fire effectively.

Not to mention SHS

Roland, on 17 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

I think this is a reasonable request, and fairly easy to implement, and worth at least examining.

Indeed, I'd be surprised though.

[Jess Hazen]

The only reason they have to impose balance changes currently is the lack of variety. They need to get going on with content. TT rules are a fine system.

[Yokaiko]

Jess Hazen, on 22 April 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

The only reason they have to impose balance changes currently is the lack of variety. They need to get going on with content. TT rules are a fine system.

We are no where close to TT rules.

[FupDup]

shintakie, on 17 April 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

But you can't raise damage because the TT purists will cry.

I don't see them crying about Large Lasers.

[Jess Hazen]

Yokaiko, on 22 April 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

We are no where close to TT rules.

Well that was implied we should be closer to TT.

Right now heavies and assaults are recieving huge benefits from alterations and mediums and lights are getting the shaft.

Doesn't really make sense to try and balance something until all variables are introduced. I expect them to rezero on TT and then if needed perform small balance tweaks from there once enough content has been developed.

[Yokaiko]

Jess Hazen, on 22 April 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Well that was implied we should be closer to TT.

Right now heavies and assaults are recieving huge benefits from alterations and mediums and lights are getting the shaft.

Doesn't really make sense to try and balance something until all variables are introduced. I expect them to rezero on TT and then if needed perform small balance tweaks from there once enough content has been developed.

A lot of the lights are actually fine.

....mediums, yeah, I called that one back when everyone was crying about nerfing fastbacks. Oh look I was right, our slow 50 tonners aren't very useful. Surprise.

Blackjack is going to be pretty much DOA for the same reason,its only as fast as the Hunch and the Centurion, and even lighter.

[Jess Hazen]

if you played in or against a light in this last HSR ballistics patch you wouldn't be saying that lights are fine.

[Yokaiko]

Jess Hazen, on 22 April 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

if you played in or against a light in this last HSR ballistics patch you wouldn't be saying that lights are fine.

I played something like 30 games in a light over the weekend. I still had a couple 3-4 kill games, my damage numbers were way down though, I don't have the uptime that I used to.

[Sprouticus]

Yokaiko, on 22 April 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

A lot of the lights are actually fine.

....mediums, yeah, I called that one back when everyone was crying about nerfing fastbacks. Oh look I was right, our slow 50 tonners aren't very useful. Surprise.

Blackjack is going to be pretty much DOA for the same reason,its only as fast as the Hunch and the Centurion, and even lighter.

Slow mediums have some wonderful uses, even in 8 mans. Running an escort is not something many people talk about, but as a role I find it fun and enjoyable. It is especially great to save the rear end of a fatty who just got rushed.

As for the actual thread discussion, I would not be averse to trying the number Roland put forth. The ML/SL changes would be fine. The 6 ML cicada would be quite the beast with those values, but getting close enough without getting legged would be an effective counter. Jenners and Hunchies would also be buffed.

Im not sure if ml secondary clusters would become viable as Zorak suggested, but again even if only some users did that I am all for it.

SRM's are not particularly viable. Oddly I have switched to streaks on my D-DC to act as an easy anti light mech option. Whatever efect (bug or not) which is allowing them to hit CT a large % of the time makes them particularly suited for scaring off/killing lights.

LRM's are fairly useless unless you have a spotter dedicated to painting the targets, which is only viable in a group. And frankly if you are going for the best oppurtunity cost, direct fire is almost always better.

But until missiles are revamped I will just say let's focus on lasers.

One last thought that I brought up in another thread would be to deocuple the speed of the PPC and gauss projectiles Raise the gauss say 50-100m/s and lower the PPC by the same amount. They would still have high travel times, but would de-sync when fired together. This would make most of the jump snipers far less useful.

[Blackadder]

the issue with just balancing lasers, is it is really only putting a band aid on the overall issue for a few months. While i agree with you, the problem we currently face is that game balance is rotating from weapon to weapon, aka balance in a vacuum as people have already stated. this will always continue because PGI is still adding new platforms for weapons, as well as new weapons and equipment. Unless all the basic weapon types are working as intended, and balanced as a whole, we will only encounter the same issues we have seen since closed beta, although i much prefer ML boating & LRM spam over the current ppc game.

I would much rather PGI tear down and rebuild the balance of the game and get it right, before release. Because honestly, without that, its going to be a major issue for the games potential to survive long term.I realize its a big issue to make major changes to a current system, but without doing something big, The game is always going to boil down to using the weapon of the moment, and only a few weapons in each class will ever be viable. in CB the game was balanced around a handful of weapons, mostly ML SL, LRM ,Gauss, UAC5, SInce then its still based around a handful of weapons, but the weapons have changed. PGI needs to address that to make every weapon have a role to play, to create diversity, not eliminate it.

[Yokaiko]

Sprouticus, on 22 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

One last thought that I brought up in another thread would be to deocuple the speed of the PPC and gauss projectiles Raise the gauss say 50-100m/s and lower the PPC by the same amount. They would still have high travel times, but would de-sync when fired together. This would make most of the jump snipers far less useful.

They are already de-sync'd PPCs go 2100/m/s and Gauss go 1200m/s When they upped the speed on the everything they left the gauss be.

The thing is you won't notice it unless you are WAY out there, since most fights are still happening at like 500m the difference in 800m a second is like 1/3 of a second.

Blackadder, on 22 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

the issue with just balancing lasers, is it is really only putting a band aid on the overall issue for a few months. While i agree with you, the problem we currently face is that game balance is rotating from weapon to weapon, aka balance in a vacuum as people have already stated. this will always continue because PGI is still adding new platforms for weapons, as well as new weapons and equipment. Unless all the basic weapon types are working as intended, and balanced as a whole, we will only encounter the same issues we have seen since closed beta, although i much prefer ML boating & LRM spam over the current ppc game.

I would much rather PGI tear down and rebuild the balance of the game and get it right, before release. Because honestly, without that, its going to be a major issue for the games potential to survive long term.I realize its a big issue to make major changes to a current system, but without doing something big, The game is always going to boil down to using the weapon of the moment, and only a few weapons in each class will ever be viable. in CB the game was balanced around a handful of weapons, mostly ML SL, LRM ,Gauss, UAC5, SInce then its still based around a handful of weapons, but the weapons have changed. PGI needs to address that to make every weapon have a role to play, to create diversity, not eliminate it.

On that note I said WAY back that the weapon damage/heat/range numbers should have been re done in order to make them work on the stock mechs. Turning the nerds lose with the mechlab before there were ever upgrades means that we are on our third generation of bandaids for bandaids.

[Tezcatli]

I like the suggestion. But its almost as though we're buffing around the problem. Why not raise the PPC heat closer to TT?

[Yokaiko]

Tezcatli, on 22 April 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I like the suggestion. But its almost as though we're buffing around the problem. Why not raise the PPC heat closer to TT?

Because you basically can't use them on anything short of an assault at that heat, and even then you seriously gimp yourself. We had 10 heat PPCs and 13 heat ER-PPC for MONTHS.

You would see things like "PPCs? You must be new"

Example? How many ER-PPC awesomes do you see wandering around? That thing is supposed to be a dedicated PPC platform.

Edited by Yokaiko, 22 April 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[Jess Hazen]

We have basicly boiled it back down to addressing the balancing issue as a whole and not with little band ****.

Until there are enough variables and niches what is the point of balancing with band **** other than to tide us over til when it can be done properly.

wow can't say **** what amazing censorship!

[Yokaiko]

The suggestion was to pull the changes to the smaller energy weapons BACK to near TT numbers. Those changes were in reaction to forum uproars as it was, when the game systems were still woefully immature.

I've said since at least july, as long as the ROFs are THREE TIMES the heat disapation that they were designed under weapons balance isn't going to favor the larger energy weapons.


Well it didn't until they jacked the heat on Slas and Mlas and reduced the heat on the llas. Half of the "PPC issue" is just forum momentum, my game hasn't really changed.

Replace -3Ds with 732s and its just one more salvo to core them, and Highlanders are a LOT slower.

[zorak ramone]

Sprouticus, on 22 April 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

Im not sure if ml secondary clusters would become viable as Zorak suggested, but again even if only some users did that I am all for it.

Even in their nerfed state, you can do this with SRMs. I still run a DDC with 3xASRM6 (I guess I'm just stubborn) as backup for my 2xPPC/GR. If I'm not already overheating, I can get off a couple of alphas before I get close to the heat cap. When I do get there, I can fire my GR/3xASRM6 combo forever without going over.

If, instead of the 3xASRM6, I had mounted another PPC (i.e. on a RS) or as many DHS as I could have, I would either have a higher alpha that ran hotter (for the 3xPPC/GR) , or the same alpha that overheated more slowly (for the 2xPPC/GR/More DHS). With the ASRMs, I can switch from 2xPPC/GR at range to 3xASRM6/GR at close range for a slightly higher alpha (42 vs 35) and higher DPS (I don't overheat, so I have higher overall DPS). This is how secondary clusters are supposed to work.

There are two problems. One, the advantages you get for running SRMs aren't enough for the tonnage. I'm spending 12 tons for the ASRM6s alone. An atlas can afford to do this, but heavies/meds can not, and the high tonnage doesn't give dedicated brawlers the decisive advantage they need in order to be viable. The other problem is that it is impossible to do this with MLs: MLs produce just as much damage/heat as PPCs, unlike SRMs, which do more, so they can never be used as secondary clusters. Reducing the heat on MLs would allow this.

Edited by zorak ramone, 22 April 2013 - 10:54 AM.