36 replies to this topic

[Stone Profit]

IceSerpent, on 30 May 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

You are missing the point - just assume for a moment that we have absolutely perfect hit detection, then try to come up with a brawler build (except for twin AC20 boat) that you feel can stand up to a sniper. Also, assume that both teams are equally skilled and are on voice comms.

All my brawler builds CAN stand up to a sniper, because Im a good pilot. What do you not understand? Ill put it in caps for you. I CAN BEAT SNIPERS BECAUSE I CAN ADAPT. You really need some reading comp lessons hombre.

Edited by Stone Profit, 30 May 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

1. SL: First bring the small lasers back into the game by lowering their cooldown to 2.00 from 2.25 and heat to 1.8 from 2.0. The first will increase their DPS a bit over the current 1.00, which will give a bit more viability compared to the current version.

The SL would benefit nicely from these changes. I'm not so sure the heat change is needed, but it'd make the ROF change a bit more user-friendly. I'd actually be more inclined to buff the range to match the new MG range profile (but energy rather than ballistic for the optimum-maximum range band).

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

2. SPL: Small pulse lasers will need a bit more work so to justify the 2 x tonnage compared to SL, their cooldown should be down to 2.00 from 2.25 just like SL, heat reduced from 3.0 to 2.5, and damage increased to 3.5 from 3.0 giving them a minor edge in that respect just like medium/large lasers have with their pulse counterparts.

The SPL should have a decreased burn time to go with these changes. Another quarter second off the burn time would make the thing fire even faster and be far more distinctive compared to its real competition, namely the ML. Keep the range as-is even if the SL gets a slight range boost, to give it a bit more of the pulse flavor (since range is supposed to be a disadvantage for pulse weapons).

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

3. MG: Due to 1. small laser DPS is now over 1.0 so we should have no problem increasing MG DPS to 1.0 from 0.8 i.e. damage from 0.08 to 0.1. The last fix to MGs made them barely playable but this minor tweak should help more.

I'd support another MG damage boost, especially a slight one like this.

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

4. Flamer: Stop playing around and start respecting the laws of thermodynamics. There is NO heat cap. I want to be able to shutdown and overheatdamage that 6xPPC stalker in my 6xenergy jenner even if it takes 5 minutes of continuous grilling! And I don't care what their damage is, once you properly implement hindrances from high heat levels as requested, the flamers will do their work.

I disagree. Stun-locking should not be a thing in this game. It's why collisions were taken out. The fix for flamers is to lower the heat generated by the user so that firing your flamer isn't prohibitive. A damage boost would not be amiss, either.

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

5. PPCs: The current LRM fix somewhat relieved the sniper problem. However, it only hides the problem still within the game, which is (ER)PPC. Especially ERPPC is deadly because it has almost the double range of largest lasers, while still being usable at close quarters after HSR (which is nice and realistic). Therefore, I think the TT heats for these weapons are not that exaggerated especially as we are about to face 12 vs. 12 soon - a condition which favors weapons, which have unlimited ammo. This is why I think PPC heat should be increased from 8 to 9 (TT:10) and ERPPC heat from 11 to 14 (TT: 15). Yes, you read right, 14, not 13. 13 would be fine if it didn't work at close range like PPC and if the clans wouldn't have to be balanced with IS weapons so that pushes it to 14 in my opinion.

The recharge nerf to PPCs and ERPPCs went a long way, but I'd like to see the PPC reduce its projectile speed to match the AC5 and the ERPPC reduced to midway between the AC5 and AC2. The ERPPC would keep a higher relative speed to reflect its improved accuracy.

A slight heat bump might be ok, but I'm reluctant to ask for one. I'd far rather see a graduated heat scale that affected "soft" things like movement speed, turn rates, twist rates, arm reflex, convergence, etc., with penalties increasing as you go up the scale, and with "hard" affects as you go into the +100% ranges (engine kill at 125% or something like that, and ammo explosions if you're in Override mode for more than 2 seconds or thereabouts).

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

6. AC/10: This is the most underpowered of the autocannons and I think the first step would be to bring the DPS to the same level as with AC/20: from 4 to 5. This would happen by dropping AC/10 cooldown from 2.5 to 2.0.

I've advocated regularizing AC dps at 5 to match the AC20 for a while now. The AC10 really isn't all that worth it except on mechs that can't physically fit an AC20. Increasing reload speed would help a lot.

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

7. LBX10: I understand the recent decrease in spread increased the viability of this weapon. Despite this, I don't really see it used. I haven't used the weapon since my 2xLBX10 atlas was a failure but this is my idea how it should work in theory. The weapon obviously has a rather long range and it should be usable up to half a kilometer. Therefore, I would imagine that at this range, the buckshot of 10 of 1 damage projectiles should still be intact enough to impact, say, 6-8 hit to an Atlas. One passes between the legs, two through armpits or something. A light mech will be less hit but still feel the hit. It is still much less than what an AC/10 would do at that range to which it should be compared. LBX10 should not be a sawed-off shotgun and there should be some justification for the high price and the current critical stuff just don't cut it.

Rather than tighten grouping even more, I'd rather they increased per-pellet damage significantly, say to 1.5 each, and leave the ROF the same while the standard AC10 gets a boost. It'd become pretty brutal up-close, and would retain a lot more damage output at range even when many of the pellets are missing. The goal would be to give it and the standard AC10 diffrent roles. The LB-10X would be for easier hitting at range and harder hitting up close, while the AC10 would be for better focused damage at all ranges and higher sustained fire.

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

8. SRM: SRM damage should be increased to 2.0 from current 1.5 to make it a good brawling weapon and make snipers/LRM-boats more scared at close range. AFAIK there are some flightpath changes incoming, which may be good because I've heard they spread weird or too much. Like LBX, I haven't used them for a while so this is more intuition than empirical data and conlusion from that.

Until the splash mechanics are fixed or removed SRM damage will likely stay low. I'd love to see splash removed entirely from SRMs and SSRMs and have their damage boosted to ~2.5 per missile. This would give them a lot of punch but would prevent them from returning to the bad-old-days of Splatcats one-shotting Atlases from behind. They'd still tear them a new one, but without the muliplying damage that splash seems to cause it'd be far more balanced. Plus, SSRMs need a ROF nerf to help standard SRMs have a brawling advantage.

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

9: LRM: LRM damage should be increased to 1.0 from current 0.9. The latest patches were nice and the hotfix made being behind cover really being behind cover again but I'd still go fo this minor tweak. Also to make LRM5 slightly more viable against AMS.

Again, until splash damage is fixed or removed I don't see LRMs getting a damage boost. I'd love to see splash taken out entirely and LRMs moving to 1.5 per missile. After a week of such missile being available to the public PGI could tweak damage, spread, etc., based on the large volume of new data.

Rasc4l, on 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

10: Seismic module: This is not a weapon but critically influences situational awareness during combat and at the moment needs some adjustment. In my opinion it has two functions: first, to prevent you from being surprised from behind and second, allowing detection of enemies beyond line of sight. Both capabilities reduce tactical elements of MWO and despite having to sacrifice a precious module slot for it, the current ranges are just too much. The ranges should be 1/2 of current. Also if there is a cave wall or something similarly heavy between you and the enemy, the range should be 1/3 so that the blockage somewhat reduces detection. It should not be inconceivable that the physical barrier scatters the seismic waves and makes detection more difficult.

Seismic could maybe use a range nerf, but harder terrain would increase range, not lower it. I'd rather see the BAP gain the ability to detect anyone inside 180m (150m if they have ECM) regardless of LOS and keep seismic the way it is. This would give it some competition (short ranged but better, since you could target people without LOS with a BAP, and it'd work even if they're not moving or shut down, and seismic still only pings your radar, without providing actual targets).

It might be good to make it more directional rather than pin-point like it is now. Have a wave come from the edge of the radar toward your triangle when it detects something. More contacts make for a darker, faster-moving wave. Closer contacts (or heavier ones, or faster-moving ones) would generate tighter waves for better directional resolution.

Seismic is one of the few things giving Brawlers a real leg-up right now, so I'm super glad that it's in-game. Whatever PGI does they ought not to nerf it into the ground, nor should they remove it.

[IceSerpent]

Stone Profit, on 30 May 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

All my brawler builds CAN stand up to a sniper, because Im a good pilot. What do you not understand? Ill put it in caps for you. I CAN BEAT SNIPERS BECAUSE I CAN ADAPT. You really need some reading comp lessons hombre.

All your brawler builds can stand up to a sniper piloted by an equally good pilot? Why don't you post a brawler build that magically "adapts" into beating a jump sniper HGN. Any mech of your choice, any short range weapons.

[Stone Profit]

IceSerpent, on 30 May 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

All your brawler builds can stand up to a sniper piloted by an equally good pilot? Why don't you post a brawler build that magically "adapts" into beating a jump sniper HGN. Any mech of your choice, any short range weapons.

Its called cover, and range, and tactics. I know, you cant believe someone can handle a sniper highlander becasue you cant. Im done with you dude, your refuse to see logic that equally skilled pilots can defeat snipers if THEY USE THEIR HEADS. something most mwo players cant seem to do.

[Pater Mors]

IceSerpent, on 30 May 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

All your brawler builds can stand up to a sniper piloted by an equally good pilot? Why don't you post a brawler build that magically "adapts" into beating a jump sniper HGN. Any mech of your choice, any short range weapons.

A1 - 6 Streaks or 2x LRM15 4x Streaks if you prefer.

C1 - 2x PPC's 2x SRM6 2x ML

Treb 3C - 4x ML 2x ASRM6

HGN 733 - AC10 2x SRM6 2x LRM15 1x ML

Before you say anything, I've beaten jumpsnipe Highlanders in all these builds by using cover and flanking and hitting hard in the first few seconds of the fight and all of this since the May 21st patch and yes, I would say that a few of those pilots were very skilful.

I am not saying that the current meta is good, because it's not and as it stands the jumpsnipe builds are definitely OP and need to be brought in line. I am just saying it's do-able and it's not the horror show that these forums make it out to be.

[IceSerpent]

Stone Profit, on 30 May 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

Its called cover, and range, and tactics. I know, you cant believe someone can handle a sniper highlander becasue you cant. Im done with you dude, your refuse to see logic that equally skilled pilots can defeat snipers if THEY USE THEIR HEADS. something most mwo players cant seem to do.

So, no magical brawler builds are forthcoming? As I expected. 5/10 on the troll attempt (needed more rage IMHO).

[El Bandito]

Pater Mors, on 30 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

A1 - 6 Streaks or 2x LRM15 4x Streaks if you prefer. C1 - 2x PPC's 2x SRM6 2x ML Treb 3C - 4x ML 2x ASRM6 HGN 733 - AC10 2x SRM6 2x LRM15 1x ML Before you say anything, I've beaten jumpsnipe Highlanders in all these builds by using cover and flanking and hitting hard in the first few seconds of the fight and all of this since the May 21st patch and yes, I would say that a few of those pilots were very skilful. I am not saying that the current meta is good, because it's not and as it stands the jumpsnipe builds are definitely OP and need to be brought in line. I am just saying it's do-able and it's not the horror show that these forums make it out to be.

Most mechs you listed is actually hybrid ranged than pure brawler. It does not hold much argument.

[Sephlock]

LRMs are also too weak.

And SSRMs could use a damage boost, along with a simultaneous ban for anyone who whines about missiles being viable.

[kuangmk11]

Hit registration needs to get fixed before we can even talk about damage numbers

[IceSerpent]

Pater Mors, on 30 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

A1 - 6 Streaks or 2x LRM15 4x Streaks if you prefer.

C1 - 2x PPC's 2x SRM6 2x ML

Treb 3C - 4x ML 2x ASRM6

HGN 733 - AC10 2x SRM6 2x LRM15 1x ML

First, wouldn't you agree that a good jump sniper pilot will reliably hit CT on all of those mechs? A really good one would simply take out Catapult's head in a single alpha?

HGN with 2 x ERPPC + gauss: 35 pt alpha, about 100pts of front CT armor (so about 158 "hit points" on CT total, including structure), your chances of getting behind it are exactly zero, as JJs allow it to literally turn on a dime.

A1 - 18 pt alpha every 3.5s / or 12 every 3.5s + 27 every 4.25s (with LRMs, best range), damage is spread (especially with LRMs)

C1 - not really a brawler, as it packs PPCs, total alpha 48 every 4s (best range), 28 of which is spread.

Treb - 38 pts every 4s, all is spread

HGN - 10 pts every 2.5s + 23 every 4s + 27 every 4.25s, the only pinpoint weapon is AC10, the rest is spread.

Now, do you honestly think that any of those mechs can take out the other HGN's CT before getting destroyed even if they managed to get into their optimal range and stay there? That AC10 HGN might, just might have a small chance if it's not slower than the sniper, doesn't pack an XL engine, and has enough ammo to finish the job. Even then, I would have a hard time betting on it.
So, if the outcome is unclear even under perfect conditions, why bother with a brawler config when going into a real match where conditions are probably not perfect, and you are likely to take some fire on approach?

[Pater Mors]

El Bandito, on 30 May 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Most mechs you listed is actually hybrid ranged than pure brawler. It does not hold much argument.

Three hybrid and three brawler.

I'm happy to swap out the long range weapons on the hybrid builds and do it again to prove the point. I'm 100% confident that I could do the same in the below builds.

A1 - StreakCat w/BAP AMS
C1 - 2x LPL 2x ML 2x SRM6
HGN 733 - AC10 2x ML 4x SRM6

[Pater Mors]

IceSerpent, on 30 May 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

First, wouldn't you agree that a good jump sniper pilot will reliably hit CT on all of those mechs? A really good one would simply take out Catapult's head in a single alpha?

I make a point of never being in a position where they'll get the chance while I can't retaliate. Yes, occasionally I do get headshotted in the Cata if I am not paying attention or if I am engaged by a Sniper when I am fighting someone else. That's not the example we're using though. 1v1 that Sniper has to find me first.

As an example - Last night I rolled up an entire enemy flank with only me in a C1 and another Cata Pilot who followed me in a K2. This was on Tourmaline and the enemy team consisted of a bunch of poptarts. We wiped the floor with them from mid to close range by taking the long route around their left flank and surprising them (guess no one was packing seismic that match).

A few matches later I did the exact same thing, taking the exact same path with a StreakCat instead.

Quote

HGN with 2 x ERPPC + gauss: 35 pt alpha, about 100pts of front CT armor (so about 158 "hit points" on CT total, including structure), your chances of getting behind it are exactly zero, as JJs allow it to literally turn on a dime.

A1 - 18 pt alpha every 3.5s / or 12 every 3.5s + 27 every 4.25s (with LRMs, best range), damage is spread (especially with LRMs)

C1 - not really a brawler, as it packs PPCs, total alpha 48 every 4s (best range), 28 of which is spread.

Treb - 38 pts every 4s, all is spread

HGN - 10 pts every 2.5s + 23 every 4s + 27 every 4.25s, the only pinpoint weapon is AC10, the rest is spread.

Now, do you honestly think that any of those mechs can take out the other HGN's CT before getting destroyed even if they managed to get into their optimal range and stay there? That AC10 HGN might, just might have a small chance if it's not slower than the sniper, doesn't pack an XL engine, and has enough ammo to finish the job. Even then, I would have a hard time betting on it.
So, if the outcome is unclear even under perfect conditions, why bother with a brawler config when going into a real match where conditions are probably not perfect, and you are likely to take some fire on approach?

Yes, I do simply because I have done it before in all of those builds. And why would I be shooting only for the CT? RCT is a much better target and contrary to what you say, JJ's doesn't mean that I will never get hits on the RCT. Normally the first hit of the fight is an Alpha to the RCT because that's where I am before they are aware of me (at least, that was the case before seismic was introduced. Now it's a bit harder to do that, admittedly.)

Nothing ever happens under 'perfect' conditions so there's no point in using that as a precondition of an example for balance purposes or even as an example of why one build is better than another.

Edited by Pater Mors, 30 May 2013 - 08:03 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

There's no point in voting when PGI doesn't participate in the outcome.

[Und3rSc0re]

I agree with most of these, but from my point of view we need to be balancing from the top down. The top meaning clan weapons which we dont know the specs of them currently. But when they come out they might have to redo balance almost completely.

Edited by Und3rSc0re, 30 May 2013 - 08:57 PM.

[Victor Morson]

I really wish this poll was "Buff and nerf." I don't really necessarily agree with the buffs proposed, even if I do with the spirit of them.

[IceSerpent]

Pater Mors, on 30 May 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

I make a point of never being in a position where they'll get the chance while I can't retaliate.

I was not talking about a situation where you can't retaliate either. More than that, I allowed the brawler to stay in its most effective range, even though we both know that chances of an LRM+SRM setup managing to stay in that 90m window between 180 and 270m for any lenght of time are slim to none.

Quote

Yes, occasionally I do get headshotted in the Cata if I am not paying attention or if I am engaged by a Sniper when I am fighting someone else. That's not the example we're using though. 1v1 that Sniper has to find me first.

Again, I was talking about you being in the brawling range already, so neither side needs to find anybody. I even didn't account for seismic sensor, which guarantees that sniper detects you as soon as you get within 400m.

Quote

As an example - Last night I rolled up an entire enemy flank with only me in a C1 and another Cata Pilot who followed me in a K2. This was on Tourmaline and the enemy team consisted of a bunch of poptarts. We wiped the floor with them from mid to close range by taking the long route around their left flank and surprising them (guess no one was packing seismic that match).

A few matches later I did the exact same thing, taking the exact same path with a StreakCat instead.

We are not comparing you to some random dude, we are comparing equipment. So, the premise is that both sides are equally skilled. In other words, you are fighting your own "evil twin".

Quote

Yes, I do simply because I have done it before in all of those builds. And why would I be shooting only for the CT? RCT is a much better target and contrary to what you say, JJ's doesn't mean that I will never get hits on the RCT. Normally the first hit of the fight is an Alpha to the RCT because that's where I am before they are aware of me (at least, that was the case before seismic was introduced. Now it's a bit harder to do that, admittedly.)

JJs mean that you will get at most one alpha into RCT (if you get an element of surprise). Given the loadouts you posted, and current damage spread, that alpha won't even do full damage to RCT.

Quote

Nothing ever happens under 'perfect' conditions so there's no point in using that as a precondition of an example for balance purposes or even as an example of why one build is better than another.

I used "perfect conditions" to show that even when everything goes your way, a brawler has a disadvantage. In a real match that disadvantage simply gets bigger.

[Rasc4l]

Renthrak, on 30 May 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

I have a few threads of my own on balance changes. Perhaps we should compare notes?

LRMs:
http://mwomercs.com/...eeking-to-lrms/

Heat:
http://mwomercs.com/...ce-first-draft/

Aiming:
http://mwomercs.com/...out-randomness/

These were all a very good read, thanks. I basically agree with all of them.