73 replies to this topic

[MCXL]

I think you make a really fair point OP when it comes to the small weapons, but then I think there are still some real systemic problems to the balance methodology that is being employed by the dev team still.

I did an analyses shortly after open beta which you can read via the link in my signature, and while the numbers aren't 100% accurate anymore the methodology is.

Edited by MCXL, 22 April 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[Roland]

MCXL, on 22 April 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

I think you make a really fair point OP when it comes to the small weapons, but then I think there are still some real systemic problems to the balance methodology that is being employed by the dev team still.

I did an analyses shortly after open beta which you can read via the link in my signature, and while the numbers aren't 100% accurate anymore the methodology is.

Good to see that folks are still interested in this thread.

Honestly, it's totally possible (likely, even) that the balance of light energy weapons will not be perfect if reverted to their original values. However, my argument that they be reverted is based purely on an analysis of why those weapons were nerfed to begin with. The immature state of the game at that point in closed beta, and the essentially useless nature of all ballistic weapons due to terrible netcode, meant that small energy weapons were the most reliable, and thus they were the most widely used.

Now that we have a number of equally viable weapons, it's worth resetting those changes and seeing how they balance against the newly improved heavy weaponry. My gut says that they'll be pretty well balanced. It's purely gut instinct, but I would really like to see how it works for myself.

[Davers]

FupDup, on 22 April 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

I don't see them crying about Large Lasers.

Or about AC2's RoF.

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 the PPC is actually fine and in a good place overall. We are trying to make brawler builds more competitive by making them more heat efficient, and as a side effect give medium mechs that rely on medium lasers a little love as well.

Let's promote more viable weapons and play styles instead of the usual 'THIS NEEDS A NERF HOTFIX NOW!!!'.

[hashinshin]

Our lord in heaven who created the infallible BT lords, his will be done. He will smite all those who dare say those 30 year old unbalanced rules are in fact unbalanced.

[Merrik Starchaser]

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

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

I was literally just thinking about making a post about this 5 minutes ago, you said it far more eloquently than I would have. This is the best idea for getting brawlers back in the game, it used to be they could get close enough to use those weapons but not the long weapons work you take to much damaged to win once you get your gimped weapons into range.

[Asmudius Heng]

Kinda agree Roland.

However I think people are so scared of nerfing weapons that the arms race becomes a little crazy.

The difference is in the power of wepaons in thier respective roles in comparison to others. Your suggestion is probably good but the debate about the PPCs and gauss etc still needs to be had.

Infighter weapons should be more efficient at short range absolutly, and long range weapons should come with significant drawbacks for thier specialty. Medium range weapons fall inbetween.

The way i see it, big longer range weapons seem just fine at infighting as well. Obviously if the smaller infighting weapons were raised this would mean the relative balance is better - but is the stacking of PPCs and Gauss etc so powerful that even once you enter infighting range after taking some hits you are still outclassed?

I would love to see HSR for Missiles done, then a comprehensive review of all weapons in thier roles.

However I also do not trust PGI to get it anywhere close to right ....

[Davers]

Asmudius Heng, on 22 April 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

Kinda agree Roland.

However I think people are so scared of nerfing weapons that the arms race becomes a little crazy.

The difference is in the power of wepaons in thier respective roles in comparison to others. Your suggestion is probably good but the debate about the PPCs and gauss etc still needs to be had.

Infighter weapons should be more efficient at short range absolutly, and long range weapons should come with significant drawbacks for thier specialty. Medium range weapons fall inbetween.

The way i see it, big longer range weapons seem just fine at infighting as well. Obviously if the smaller infighting weapons were raised this would mean the relative balance is better - but is the stacking of PPCs and Gauss etc so powerful that even once you enter infighting range after taking some hits you are still outclassed?

I would love to see HSR for Missiles done, then a comprehensive review of all weapons in thier roles.

However I also do not trust PGI to get it anywhere close to right ....

Many of the ideas about nerfing PPCs and Gauss either require PGI to go back to the drawing board and redesign MWO, which is not happening, or propose a change (usually based in TT mechanics) to fix the problem, but show the suggester actually doesn't understand what the problem actually is.

Like people say, "Put the heat back to TT values!". That is good, if we wanted to make a guy considering trading his LL for a PPC to decide not to. But a Poptart won't really be too effected. His entire strategy is hitting with a big alpha, then cooling off anyway.If he has to wait an additional 3 second it isn't going to matter to him. If he shuts down after the second alpha it still doesn't matter to him. The point is that he is putting out lots of damage.

If PPCs become crippling heat-wise, then no one will use them and everyone will use alternatives. So we will have more LL poptarts, and Dual Gauss+LL Cataphract builds instead of 2 PPC+Gauss builds. So, different weapons with the same situations. And one more weapon will just be discarded as 'not worth using'.

[Asmudius Heng]

Davers, on 22 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Many of the ideas about nerfing PPCs and Gauss either require PGI to go back to the drawing board and redesign MWO, which is not happening, or propose a change (usually based in TT mechanics) to fix the problem, but show the suggester actually doesn't understand what the problem actually is.

Like people say, "Put the heat back to TT values!". That is good, if we wanted to make a guy considering trading his LL for a PPC to decide not to. But a Poptart won't really be too effected. His entire strategy is hitting with a big alpha, then cooling off anyway.If he has to wait an additional 3 second it isn't going to matter to him. If he shuts down after the second alpha it still doesn't matter to him. The point is that he is putting out lots of damage.

If PPCs become crippling heat-wise, then no one will use them and everyone will use alternatives. So we will have more LL poptarts, and Dual Gauss+LL Cataphract builds instead of 2 PPC+Gauss builds. So, different weapons with the same situations. And one more weapon will just be discarded as 'not worth using'.

Yes, the problems run deeper and i dont know if those base mechanics can ever be changed now. However as I said the best we can do is make weapons balanced reletive to each other.

While the pop tarter might not care much about heat, if it is punishing enough that they cannot shoot as often then they will not have the same smashing power in close range compared to other more heat efficient weapons hopefully meaning once you close you have a much greater chance of winning the fight after taking damage coming in.

However, heat is also not the complete answer either. There are many variable to buff or nerf so that weapons fit into the roles they were designed to without changing base mechanics - though god i wish they would!

Relative power first - no balance change can exist in isolation - balance is an ecosystem

[Roland]

Asmudius Heng, on 22 April 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

However I think people are so scared of nerfing weapons that the arms race becomes a little crazy.

I hear ya, but in this case I'm not afraid of nerfing anything. My main reason for not wanting to nerf PPC's right now is that they actually feel GOOD right now. They feel like I expect PPC's to feel.

Quote

The way i see it, big longer range weapons seem just fine at infighting as well. Obviously if the smaller infighting weapons were raised this would mean the relative balance is better - but is the stacking of PPCs and Gauss etc so powerful that even once you enter infighting range after taking some hits you are still outclassed?

Well, this is how it is at the moment... Which is exactly why I'm suggesting restoring the original statistics for the light energy weapons.

Once the small and medium lasers have their heat levels reduced to original levels, then those weapons will have an advantage over the heavy hitting weapons. That advantage will still be fairly small, I suspect, but it may be enough to justify wanting to get up close and personal to use those weapons.

Quote

I would love to see HSR for Missiles done, then a comprehensive review of all weapons in thier roles.

Honestly, I don't really expect state rewind to really change any of the metagame surrounding missiles, at all. Especially in the context of the discussion here... if you take a fast infighting mech, and get close to the PPC/Gauss mechs with SRM's... are you missing your targets with the SRM's? I kind of doubt it.. in those situations, you're shooting at fairly slow, clunky targets. State rewind isn't gonna improve the SRM's.

But, at the same time, I don't really find that SRM's have been nerfed that bad. And I think that if the light energy weapons are buffed slightly, it's going to have a much larger effect on improving the performance of SRM carriers (with the notable exception of the A1 catapult).

Quote

However I also do not trust PGI to get it anywhere close to right ....

I think PGI catches a lot of flack, but as I've pointed out previously... even in the current state, the balance and gameplay of MWO is far better than it was in MW4, and you and I both played MW4 for the better part of a decade.

[Asmudius Heng]

True Roland, i get worked up at PGI but mainly about a few individual things more than everything. Some things about MW4 were better I feel but sometimes by virtue of simplicity of the system more than careful design. A few months ago I basically realised the poor netcode was some of the main issues which is why I am waiting for HSR on missiles first ... but yes, i dont think it will change much, but i am willing to wait til that is in so they can look at everything with fresh eyes on a more equal level.

I am actually on the fence on PPCs etc, it is glorious to be able to hit with them with an AU ping, but I feel that the issues is so multifacted with gametypes, maps design, matchmaking etc that it is bloody hard to see the big picture. I just want balance and variety and It feels like variety at least is suffering for more than just the weapons you mentioned.

Also Pulse lasers need more range imo

[Davers]

Asmudius Heng, on 22 April 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

Yes, the problems run deeper and i dont know if those base mechanics can ever be changed now. However as I said the best we can do is make weapons balanced reletive to each other.

While the pop tarter might not care much about heat, if it is punishing enough that they cannot shoot as often then they will not have the same smashing power in close range compared to other more heat efficient weapons hopefully meaning once you close you have a much greater chance of winning the fight after taking damage coming in.

However, heat is also not the complete answer either. There are many variable to buff or nerf so that weapons fit into the roles they were designed to without changing base mechanics - though god i wish they would!

Relative power first - no balance change can exist in isolation - balance is an ecosystem

It's my experience that these sniper builds run much hotter than my brawler. They can't keep up their firing compared to me. And I can soak up their damage a lot better.

I agree with Roland in that PPCs and LLs 'feel right'. We just need more weapons to 'feel right' as well.

[Roland]

It's part of why I'm making the suggestion here...

Earlier in beta, the lighter energy weapons felt right too... the big problem was that they were the ONLY weapons that felt right... which ended up making them overpowered compared to everything else.

Essentially, you had medium lasers and SRM's. Everything else was garbage by comparison.

PGI's decision at the time was perfectly reasonable.. they nerfed down those weapons, because fixing the netcode would take more time, and they didn't want to just have a game where everyone ran around boating SRM's and ML's.

But now the netcode is cool. You can freaking hit stuff now with every weapon, and it's awesome. I doubt that the ML is going to become anywhere close to as widespread as it was previously, given the existence of functional ballistic weaponry now. As it stands, it's not like it's unused... it's still a solid weapon for many mechs. But I think that perhaps the mechs that rely on it are essentially getting shortchanged, and don't really have the tonnage available to just slap on the heavy weapons.

[zorak ramone]

Roland, on 22 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I hear ya, but in this case I'm not afraid of nerfing anything. My main reason for not wanting to nerf PPC's right now is that they actually feel GOOD right now. They feel like I expect PPC's to feel.

This is true. PPCs are, for the first time in MWO's history, actually viable/competitive. If they nerf PPCs now by bringing their heat up, we'll be back to the point where GRs/UAC5s were the undisputed kings of all weapons ... only now it will be worse because LRMs are worthless and SRMs are nerfed.

[Talrich]

This still seems the right idea. Did the discussion die in the transition from the old general forum structure, or is there new life for it in the balance or load out forums?