64 replies to this topic

[DeaconW]

This should be addressed by fixing the following things in the following order:

1. Fix the ability to aim well while using JJ (this is planned) - This will minimize poptarding.
2. End the absurd convergence mechanic where all fire hits one part of the mech. There should be some variance in different weapons projectile path to the target(including streaks!). This will make boating less attractive.
3. LRM buff. This will bring missiles back into play.

Once those three are done, then reassess the balance of the game.

[Sedit]

Bad Andy, on 10 May 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

it's not hard to see there's a problem when ERPPCs are possibly the best sniping weapon at ranges of up to 1600 meters and still very good for brawling at up to point blank.

ya might just melt my paint at that range

[Nmementh]

Put the min range penaulty back onto the ERPPC and then wait to see what happens after the missiles are rebalanced?

[Rebas Kradd]

Agree wholeheartedly that addressing PPC's should wait until after LRM's are brought back into the fray. They'll discourage a lot of snipers right off the bat.

[Aegic]

Nmementh, on 11 May 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Put the min range penaulty back onto the ERPPC and then wait to see what happens after the missiles are rebalanced?

The ER PPC never had the 90m minimum range. The reason is because it never did in tabletop. You get better range and no minimum range for a very noticeable heat increase.

[Canniballistic]

Aegic, on 11 May 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

As for your comment on ER-PPC vs AC/10 you left out that the AC/10 generates 3 heat per shot and has a recycle rate of 2.5 seconds. The ER-PPC generates a whopping 11 heat per shot and has a recycle rate of 3 seconds.

sokitumi, on 11 May 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

And how many heatsinks....zzz

Lets crunch some numbers shall we... but were going to use the BT numbers because that was the original philosophy for ballance in MWO before everything was nerfed.
In BT a PPC becomes self sufficient at the same weight as an AC 10... done.
The point I was making before was that the ballance mindset that they for MWO is what the problem is and less the actual ballancing ^{(it is still an issue though...)}.

Now lets think about it in MWO's own context shall we...
Mechs are ponderous and you have this weapon that deals large amounts of damage, with pin-point accuracy, over large distances, with a very high velocity, short recycle time and the weapon is small enough to fit in enough heat sinks and even on certain cold maps, make the weapon not generate excessive ^{(not none)} amounts of heat.

Youre brain dead if you think thats fair in a game like MWO.

The reason it was fine in a TT wargame that they have havent touched for ballance in decades ^{(correct me if im wrong but its beside the point)} is because in that game the weapon would only have a few chances to shoot before a mech was close enough to return fire with similarly powerfull weapons *AND* the weapon had issues fireing at mechs in close range aswell as a risk reward system for removing the range restriction.


TLDR: Point is whoever is ballancing MWO needs to stop playing with thier models ^{(i love TT games aswell so shut up)} and start ballancing MWO from head to toe instead of nerfing individual items which ruins the overall ballance ^{(the difference between ballancing and nerfing)}.

In closing: STOP ASKING THEM TO FIX SINGLE THINGS AND MAKE THEM BALLANCE THE ENTIRE GAME ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE THEY HAVE RUINED IT.



damn fanboys...

[Aegic]

I dont see why being a fanboy needs to be a negative thing.

I can't really argue with your logic. Not because I agree with it, but because I dont understand it and it does not make sense to me. Everything has tradeoffs. EVERYTHING IN LIFE. Even energy and ballistic weapons in MWO.

Heat/Tonnage/Ammo/Weapons Explosion (Gauss)/Range/RateOfFire(DPS)/Slots.

You say that that the balance mindset is the problem and less so the actual balancing? I dont see the difference however this is MechWarrior. In MechWarrior there ARE giant particle cannons that do awesome one shot damage (with high heat) for their tonnage. Thats it, they DO exist. Its a part of TT, its a part of the Battletech Universe.

Your argument is akin to saying that Claymores in Chivalry: Medieval Warfare are really OP because of their damage and range while ignoring the fact that they swing slowly and can be more easily parried than a shorter and faster blade.

I am just as frustrated as the next guy about all the popfarting (no typo) going around and the 4/6 PPC boats that plague todays matches. However I also understand that this is STILL in Beta and being tested and tweaked on a constant basis.

If you do not want to have faith in the developer there is nothing I can do to change that. However while there are things I dont understand that are taking a while to come out (custom battles mainly) so far they have kept their word on everything and for the most part stayed true to their content release timeline.

Edited by Aegic, 11 May 2013 - 06:58 PM.

[Canniballistic]

Aegic, on 11 May 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

I can't really argue with your logic.

But you try anyway I guess

Aegic, on 11 May 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

Not because I agree with it, but because I dont understand it and it does not make sense to me. Everything has tradeoffs. EVERYTHING IN LIFE. Even energy and ballistic weapons in MWO.

Lets help you out as you dont understand but still decided to argue the point.

If you keep nerfing single items in a game that are called to attention because of the players you will never reach actual ballance as they are two completely different things.
"Weapon A is too powerfull" the players say. Then a month later they say "Weapon B is too powerfull"... you catch my drift yet?

Now i never said they should nerf the PPC, I did say that they should be ballancing the game from a perspective that takes into account the games mechanics and other weapons, tools, mech size, speed, etc. instead of using BT on TT as a base.



TLDR: The point is there is much more to take into account than the damage ratios in a complex 3D shooter. This isnt TT and should not try to be.


Theres a neat saying I've read. It goes something along the lines of; 'If a player tells you something is wrong with the game they are right. If a player tries to tell you how to fix it they are wrong.'

[Aegic]

Your logic and your argument are two different things. Your logic I dont understand and have not touched.

So just to recap.

You opened quoting me and remarking that the game would essentially never have a full release, to which I would rather not speculate its purpose (your remark that is).
-I further defined what a release would be.

In the same post you followed with one example in how ER-PPCs seem unbalanced to you and used the AC/10 for comparison.
-I used actual data and showed how they were balanced in comparison to each other and even gave a quick rundown of the pros of each.

Your next post disregarded the data on heat I provided and also introduced that you think the PPC is wrong because you do not think its fair. You also indirectly called me a fanboy in what I took as an offensive manner.
-I responded telling you I didnt understand what your thought process was behind your statements and also what part of those statements I did not understand. I then gave an example of another game where people think a certain weapon is totally unbalanced and gave reasons as to why it was not (I can usually kill someone with a claymore if I have a much faster blade) I also empathized with you in that I am also frustrated by the PPC boats I see in a lot of games and also pointed out the game is in Beta.

Once again you quoted me and made a remark

Quote

Let help me you as you dont understand

which is totally passive-aggressive towards me and I do not appreciate it.
You helping me consisted of you simply repeating what you said in different words. You stated that you never said to nerf the PPC, although most of your balance examples have revolved around that one weapon, but to rebalance the whole game with relation to itself instead of using TT for the foundation.

Here is my response.

The game is not released yet, the release is due later this Summer provided all goes well. There are mechanics, weapons, mechs, gameplay types and more features that have not even been implemented yet. Lets just wait until that happens and then we can look at the picture as a whole.

PGI has all of the data on the matches we play. They would be a little better suited to making it balanced and fair I think BUT in using TT rules as a base it makes MWO feel like mechwarrior. They have deviated from TT for balance reasons the way that lasers operate being a prime example.

As far as your neat saying that you have read I have never heard it. However in regards to that you have not really said how to fix it, just that it is imbalanced.

Please try and keep this thread incendiary free. I would like to debate in a civil environment.

[Pinselborste]

its the art, the names and the way the weapons act that make it feel like mechwarrior and not the fact that it uses TT stats.you could use those stats in a WW2 game, but it wont feel like mechwarior cause of that.

[atdsutm]

bring them back to pre-buff stats.

[Syllogy]

Instead of "Fixing" PPCs, you should be looking towards why PPC's are the go-to weapon for many pilots. With Missiles broken and Autocannons being so heavy and ammunition dependent, it's pretty clear.

amoyngkabag, on 12 May 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

bring them back to pre-buff stats.

They were "buffed" by -1 Heat Generation in February, and a relatively average speed upgrade. That isn't enough to make them "Godly."

[DeaconW]

Syllogy, on 12 May 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

They were "buffed" by -1 Heat Generation in February, and a relatively average speed upgrade. That isn't enough to make them "Godly."

But everything in this game is synergistic. As you pointed out, they did the minor PPC buff in conjunction with:

1. Nerfing Missiles (they needed it because of the splash damage problem but they did overnerf)
2. Improving targeting (HSR made it easier to hit with a PPC)
3. Introducing large maps and statiscially biasing the map rotation toward those maps(biases toward LR weapons)
4. Introducing a mech with the hardpoints and mechanic(poptarding) to take advantage of 1-3 plus the minor PPC buff (Heavy Metal, then the rest of the Highlanders)

All of those had a positive multiplicative effect in making the game PPC/Poptard heavy.

Now that I read the above...a cynic might say that with the release of the Misery(another PPC+Gauss sniper mech) as the next mech after the Highlander and all the above changes, maybe PGI is crazy like a fox and planned this ridiculous shift in gameplay simply to spur Heavy Metal and Misery sales. If that view is correct, expect that missiles will get a huge buff right as a Missile Boat Catapult Hero mech gets released...

Edited by DeaconW, 12 May 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[Aegic]

Pinselborste, on 12 May 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

its the art, the names and the way the weapons act that make it feel like mechwarrior and not the fact that it uses TT stats.you could use those stats in a WW2 game, but it wont feel like mechwarior cause of that.

I agree the art has a large play in the MechWarrior feel.

However, and I may or may not be alone in this, as a person who has played every MechWarrior game in existance (with the exception of TT which is actually going to change in the near future) the weapons feel very authentic and true to those as a whole.

I am not saying do not balance the game, I am saying do not go and change everything from what it was. For example, please do not make LRMS without minimum range. Please do not wildly change optimum range on weapons from BT canon. Please
do not make the PPC a beam weapon or a low damage/high ROF weapon. Stuff like that.

I have grown up KNOWING to be wary of PPCs and Gauss Rifles because they hurt, I have also grown up knowing that they have drawbacks.

I think PGI is on the right track and as a veteran of many FTP games can say they have done better than most with both their balancing and their communication with the community.

I am interested to see how they fix the LRM damage. Will they redo all of the geometries of the affected targets/mechs?

[Dishevel]

How do you fix what is not broken?
PPCs, ERPPCs they are nice.
If I run a Stalker I still do not run 6xPPCs.
A very Nice build is 2xERPPCs 4xERLLs and a couple of Streaks.

[Tarl Cabot]

iirc history of changes for ER/PPC
1. Heat generated was dropped by one.
2. Speed increased
3. Updated HSR

I will use Solaris rules simply as a guide on how it was broken down from the 10secs/turn in BT to the 2.5secs/turn in Solaris. FYI everything was quad, heatscale at 120, heat generated ERPPC 60 (15x4) while heat sinks still only cooled by rating HS=1, DHS=2.

1. Increasing ER/PPC heat back to original or not (shrugs) it will not change the behaviors been seen today. Anyone who says differently is likely fooling themselves, as long as the current heat scale/system is in place.

2. Increase recycle time. Currently it is at 3 secs whereas ERL/LL/LPL is at 3.25secs, Gauss/AC20 is at 4secs. LRM range from 3.25 to 4.75. The times are much shorter than in Solaris rules (3 turns)

3. Heat scale - 4-6ppc mech should come to a complete stop using Solaris rules. More detrimental effects the higher on the scale, ranging from mech travel speed as well as aiming (torso twist/arm movement) speed.

Solaris-wise, if a stalker fired 6 erppc 6x(4x11MWO) = 6x44 = 264 heat. 4erppc = 176 heat. That would be the heat spike before HS can even begin to exhaust the heat that was generated.

4. Convergence? It can be tweaked. Sad part is I have not seen an ERPPC be out of wack whereas I have seen it happen with Gauss and AC shots.

Do I use them? Hai, I do but even I am able to acknowledge that the heatscale is more of a slight handicap than a true deterrent and that ERPPC recycle time it out of kilter when compared to Gauss rifle or AC20.

So the initial tweak would be to increase the recycle time to bring it in-line with the other weapons of similar damage output. The heatscale and convergence are items that will take some time to rework but would need to be done before CW/Clans are introduced.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 12 May 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[Lugh]

HarmAssassin, on 11 May 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Give REAL penalties for overheating. Problem solved.

It's even simpler than that.... editted for truth....

Each percent above 100% heat should be doing internal damage. Onus order, Heat sink, engine, weapon causing the heat.

[Caboose30]

What we need are real, negative effects of running too hot. Sluggish mech, reticle dances all over the screen, possible shutdown *before* 100% is reached if you don't override it. Things like that. And let us not forget the potential for ammo explosions.

[John MatriX82]

PPCs need maybe a slight increase of their recycle time, they should be on par of gauss rifles or a halway between LLs and GR (3.5s).

At the moment we're in this meta because LRMs suck, SRMs suck and Lasers are inferior when you know that the other side features more efficient weapons that don't let you get close or require time and exposition to be properly placed.

I say let them re-estabilish missile utility and see how the game balance goes. What bugs me now it's the general slowness to solve certain bugs like missile splash dmg that leaves us with a game like it's now for too long.

[DeaconW]

JuiceCaboose, on 12 May 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

What we need are real, negative effects of running too hot. Sluggish mech, reticle dances all over the screen, possible shutdown *before* 100% is reached if you don't override it. Things like that. And let us not forget the potential for ammo explosions.

There was that flickering thing in MW4...I agree, this kind of mechanic could be useful.