1263 replies to this topic

[Gen Kumon]

Well...bit of a mixed bag here. I'm happy with the overall direction this is going, though I can't say I agree with all the changes. Pulse laser, flamer, and MG changes are all good. Streak changes...might work out, we'll have to see it in practice. I'd rather the head damage threshold be lower, around 125% or even 115%, but again, I think we'll have to see that in practice since it's such a large change, rather than just shifting some numbers around.

Boating...again, a lot of this rides on the exact numbers. I'd have limited PPCs to two rather than three, myself, with maybe a quirk on the Awesome to allow it three, for example. Honestly, I think quirks are the way to work with this. That said, overall I think if they were going to implement something like this, they're at least headed in vaguely the right direction. The inability to properly play a nine ML Swayback is...a bit weak, I suppose, but I generally run mine with SL anyway, so this'll likely not effect me. I think a quirk to allow the Swayback to pack a full nine ML without heat penalty would be acceptable, personally, considering how easy it is to take out 7 out of it's 9 hardpoints.

[FupDup]

Havok1978, on 11 June 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

bye bye ppc boats.. thank god

Do you seriously believe that?

[Victor Morson]

I think the general arc of this announcement was amusing; it started out with a lot of people coming on just to gloat over the death of alpha strikes, only to realize that this basically doesn't solve what's killing them at all, but sure does mess them up.

I'm still trying to figure out how we got to this point. How did a system get designed that literally exists to do the exact opposite of what it was pitched to do?

Havok1978, on 11 June 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

the tears... the beautiful scrumptious tears....

i would recommend setting the heat dmg threshold at 130% instead of 150%

bye bye ppc boats.. thank god

Someone hasn't read the thread.

[BootHands]

FupDup, on 11 June 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

Do you seriously believe that?

He lives in a magical land where introducing heat caps and hosing ML boats will magically make some ****** build from a mediocre book some disposable writer wrote 20 years ago viable.

[aniviron]

The 150% heat penalty will do nothing. There is exactly one mech in the game that can do this, and it is the 6ppc stalker. I run a 4ppc AWS-8Q and it can't do this. I don't believe the 6llas 8Q could do it either. This means you're coding in a global weapon system restriction to deal with one variant of one mech, and it's not even a very good build- as someone else delightfully phrased it, the 6ppc stalker has "a bit of a narcolepsy problem."

Darius Deadeye, on 11 June 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

I've seen so many posts like this in this thread, and I don't get it.

They come up with a pretty functional plan to deal with excessive boating that doesn't just cover PPC's.

You can still fire 6 mlas at the same time - no penalty. You can still BOAT 9 mlas, but the last 3, you fire at 0,5 second delay.

I don't see the issue. Is there even an issue? No. We will probably just see less extreme alpha'ing all across the board.

Better yet, less alpha'ing in total. Alpha'ing shoulnd't be normal execution, but an exception.

See, but there's the problem. There is no reason to ever fire anything but alphas, unless your opponent is a sneeze away from falling and you don't have the heat cap to alpha again. I will tell you why this hurts the HBK-4P so much, and in the process explain a deep-seated problem with this game.

When I fire a 9mlas alpha with my hbk, I am guaranteed to do something useful, as long as my aim is good enough to hit my opponent. Did I miss what I aimed for, or did the other guy twist skillfully? Doesn't matter- even if I hit an arm, I come close to taking it off or at least core it, and removing a component is very useful, even if it's not the one you wanted (i.e. head or ct).

When I fire 9mlas in chain fire or continuously through groups, you spread the same amount of damage over every component of the mech. Not only is it much harder to keep your aim on your opponent for ten seconds instead of one second, but if your opponent is good or fast he'll be very hard to track and keep on target, so not only will not all the damage hit one section, but you might not even hit all the damage at all, and you have no time of your own to twist and spread damage coming from return fire. Even in a best-case scenario, assuming every second of your beam hits something on the mech, if you spread 40 damage across two arms, all three torso segments, and maybe a little bit to the head, you are dealing about 7 damage to each section, enough to make it yellow on a light or medium, and enough to do absolutely nothing to an assault. So ask yourself: would you rather turn every section of your opponent's mech yellow, or strip all the armor from his side torso and hit the internals a bit?

So yes, making it such that a hunchback has to delay to fire a third of its weapons payload is a pretty significant nerf, even across just one shot. When you consider the fact that this firing delay adds up as firing the second shot of 3 lasers means you might have to wait to fire the third shot of six again... well, let's just say that you will see even fewer 4ps and bj1s on the field than you do already.

Maybe if boating 9mlas were such a huge problem they could have just not given us a mech with nine energy hardpoints? I mean, what the **** am I supposed to do with nine energy hardpoints? I don't have the tonnage to slap ppcs or llas on there, slasers are absolutely worthless garbage, and mplas are almost as bad as slas/splas. It's like some kind of joke; "Have fun with those mechs that don't have a variety of hardpoint types!"

[MonkeyCheese]

Can you please remove the jumpjet shake now that the boating nerf is coming. That solves your high heat high damage overheating poptart fad, there is no need for the jumpjet shake with this new approach, I want my spider back...

[Deathlike]

Victor Morson, on 11 June 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

This is literally backwards from what it should be doing.  It's baffling to the point I wonder if the whole system was crafted on the back of a napkin and wasn't given a peer review, or simply originates from a very deep seated misunderstanding of how the game actually plays.

PGI isn't playing the same game that we are. That is the root of all problems.

Havok1978, on 11 June 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

bye bye ppc boats.. thank god

Oh no.. you're wrong. They'll be still there and kicking because you don't truly understand the changes made.

Edited by Deathlike, 11 June 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Pulse lasers are too heavy for thier RANGE not so much the damage.

They have such poor range for thier weight that they are not worth taking for the most part.

Paul mentions DPS as a way to balance these things but thier range is never taken into account. If the range was upped for each Pulse laser just a little bit they would become more viable and i know i would use them more.

Say

SPL: 110m
MPL: 220m
LPL: 350m

Somethign like that would give it a small lift that could really help. The medpulse needs to be a meaninful choice for people between the medlas and medpulse. Right now I always default to the medlas and do better for it.

[WolvesX]

Gen Kumon, on 11 June 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

Well...bit of a mixed bag here. I'm happy with the overall direction this is going, though I can't say I agree with all the changes. Pulse laser, flamer, and MG changes are all good. Streak changes...might work out, we'll have to see it in practice. I'd rather the head damage threshold be lower, around 125% or even 115%, but again, I think we'll have to see that in practice since it's such a large change, rather than just shifting some numbers around.

Boating...again, a lot of this rides on the exact numbers. I'd have limited PPCs to two rather than three, myself, with maybe a quirk on the Awesome to allow it three, for example. Honestly, I think quirks are the way to work with this. That said, overall I think if they were going to implement something like this, they're at least headed in vaguely the right direction. The inability to properly play a nine ML Swayback is...a bit weak, I suppose, but I generally run mine with SL anyway, so this'll likely not effect me. I think a quirk to allow the Swayback to pack a full nine ML without heat penalty would be acceptable, personally, considering how easy it is to take out 7 out of it's 9 hardpoints.

So you like the NERF to the LARGE PULSE LASER?

Interresting...

[Victor Morson]

As a side note PGI if we sound like an angry mob, we are in a way, but mostly out of alarm. We don't hate you guys, we're just very vocal because a lot of these balance decisions are so wildly out of touch and do have a very big impact on the game's population.

You guys have gotten a lot right here and the last balance patch did enough good that I've been more or less quiet until this; I wanted to see where you guys were going to go with the next patch and see if things stayed on track. Man oh man, did they ever go off the rails.

Most of this stuff is number tweaking.. that's all we need. We don't need wild swings to pulse lasers even (just a reduction in discharge time).. but that's overshadowed by this crazy heat plan. Please check my earlier post about consulting with some good teams for their opinions on balance before going public with anything in the future.

I am honestly not sure what's going on up there but your typical announcements shouldn't meet with a 50/50 chance of ending in more negative feedback than the Xbox One announcement.

But yeah, back on track: You guys are doing a great job overall. In fact, it is more frustrating to be so close to on-target only to constantly have what is almost right-on constantly threatened for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's terrible mishandling over what amounts to a handful of very small number tweaks.

We just don't want to see MW:O go down, and the way these announcements tend to go a lot of us have come to dread the patch notes since they always offer at least one step back (even if there's two steps forwards). Even the last patch nerf'ed MGs while buffing them, which is pretty much my point. The decisions made just seem outright baffling to everyone.

Bottom line is we want MW:O to be successful and I think wherever these balance changes needs to consult more people. The priorities seem wrong, and those things that are done feel out of left field.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 05:02 PM.

[Lusankya]

I like what they are trying to do with this kind of update. The thing I want to know is why they can't do this kind of thing per mech variant and apply the heat penalties that way. Although I don't know if that would be any better.

[Zeus X]

Great idea on the weapons, but what about the parkinson's you gave the jump jetting mechs?

[ssm]

aniviron, on 11 June 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

(...)

See, but there's the problem. There is no reason to ever fire anything but alphas, unless your opponent is a sneeze away from falling and you don't have the heat cap to alpha again. I will tell you why this hurts the HBK-4P so much, and in the process explain a deep-seated problem with this game.

When I fire a 9mlas alpha with my hbk, I am guaranteed to do something useful, as long as my aim is good enough to hit my opponent. Did I miss what I aimed for, or did the other guy twist skillfully? Doesn't matter- even if I hit an arm, I come close to taking it off or at least core it, and removing a component is very useful, even if it's not the one you wanted (i.e. head or ct).

When I fire 9mlas in chain fire or continuously through groups, you spread the same amount of damage over every component of the mech. Not only is it much harder to keep your aim on your opponent for ten seconds instead of one second, but if your opponent is good or fast he'll be very hard to track and keep on target, so not only will not all the damage hit one section, but you might not even hit all the damage at all, and you have no time of your own to twist and spread damage coming from return fire. Even in a best-case scenario, assuming every second of your beam hits something on the mech, if you spread 40 damage across two arms, all three torso segments, and maybe a little bit to the head, you are dealing about 7 damage to each section, enough to make it yellow on a light or medium, and enough to do absolutely nothing to an assault. So ask yourself: would you rather turn every section of your opponent's mech yellow, or strip all the armor from his side torso and hit the internals a bit?

(...)

If I had my tinfoil hat on, I'd say the target of this particular change isn't really HBK-P, but upcoming (inevitably) 12 ER ML Nova.

[Asmudius Heng]

WolvesX, on 11 June 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

I love this!

I LOVE THIS!

Why in the world would you actually NERF (!?!!?!?!?) the LPL.

There IS no reason. There can't be one.

I would really like to know the statement from the guy that thought this out!!!

Range does not seem to be taken into account for balancing it seems. My previous post about ranges still makes the LPL terrible after seeing that chart. If it is going to have such weight and such low range the damage better start being buffed, or the heat better start being lowered for better DPS.

I would like to see lower heat and higher damage and longer range because it needs all of it to be viable for 7 tonnes which could be a PPC.

[WolvesX]

Asmudius Heng, on 11 June 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Range does not seem to be taken into account for balancing it seems. My previous post about ranges still makes the LPL terrible after seeing that chart. If it is going to have such weight and such low range the damage better start being buffed, or the heat better start being lowered for better DPS.

I would like to see lower heat and higher damage and longer range because it needs all of it to be viable for 7 tonnes which could be a PPC.

How "strange" must a person be,

that is getting paid for balancing the game,

that he EVEN thinks about nerfing the LPL.


The person is obviously NOT playing the game.

AND this

is just

SAD.

Edited by WolvesX, 11 June 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[Deathlike]

Asmudius Heng, on 11 June 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Range does not seem to be taken into account for balancing it seems. My previous post about ranges still makes the LPL terrible after seeing that chart. If it is going to have such weight and such low range the damage better start being buffed, or the heat better start being lowered for better DPS.

I would like to see lower heat and higher damage and longer range because it needs all of it to be viable for 7 tonnes which could be a PPC.

For 7 tons, you could have 1 ton of AC2 dakka.

That would be more enjoyable than the wub wub given by the LPL.

You would think 7 tons would get you to mid-range, instead of slightly further than short range.

[BootHands]

This change is going to make PPC boats better, while nerfing lots of stuff that doesn't deserve to be nerfed.

At least MGs and flamers are getting better though.

[Victor Morson]

Asmudius Heng, on 11 June 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Range does not seem to be taken into account for balancing it seems. My previous post about ranges still makes the LPL terrible after seeing that chart. If it is going to have such weight and such low range the damage better start being buffed, or the heat better start being lowered for better DPS.

I would like to see lower heat and higher damage and longer range because it needs all of it to be viable for 7 tonnes which could be a PPC.

I've long held that it's firing duration should be brought down to around 0.25 instead of 0.75.

If it could hitscan deliver PPC damage at a faster ROF almost instantly, it would be an absolutely excellent brawling weapon. Changing it's damage and upping it's heat was totally the wrong way to go.

Edited by Victor Morson, 11 June 2013 - 05:09 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I'm going to ask what I consider an obscenely stupid question.

Why doesn't PGI use the same tactic they've used with UI2.0?

Instead of telling us what you are going to do with the "TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT" type of post, why not share with us what your thoughts are, and ask how for input? And of course, actually read it and use it.

The social aspects of UI2.0 have benefited greatly from player input. It's one of the more impressive changes I've seen from the dev team.

Why can't we implement a similar style of dialogue with regards to major aspects of weapon balancing? Obviously we don't need 100 people posting about you upping the damage on MG's by .02 or whatever.

But when it comes to something like damage due to overheating, or trying to penalize alpha builds, I feel like there are a lot of good ideas floating around from accomplished players, who are in the trenches day in and day out playing your game.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 11 June 2013 - 05:09 PM.

[Deathlike]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 11 June 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

I'm going to ask what I consider an obscenely stupid question.

Why doesn't PGI use the same tactic they've used with UI2.0?

Instead of telling us what you are going to do with the "TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT" type of post, why not share with us what your thoughts are, and ask how for input? And of course, actually read it and use it.

The social aspects of UI2.0 have benefited greatly from player input. It's one of the more impressive changes I've seen from the dev team.

Why can't we implement a similar style of dialogue with regards to major aspects of weapon balancing? Obviously we don't need 100 people posting about you upping the damage on MG's by .02 or whatever.

But when it comes to something like damage due to overheating, or trying to penalize alpha builds, I feel like there are a lot of good ideas floating around from accomplished players, who are in the trenches day in and day out playing your game.

You could say the same thing for ECM, Seismic, and maybe a few other things... but you know, that idea is so out of the box, it's probably not gonna work.