14 replies to this topic

[Sable Dove]

Needless heat penalty on AC2s reduced slightly.

UAC/5 nerfed after highly inappropriate buff.

Flamer range increased. Flamer mechanic changed so that it has virtually no effect on either mech, rather than just virtually no effect on just the enemy.

UAC/5 ammo increased to 30/ton.


The UAC changes were a result of their own mistake, buffing an already overpowered weapon. It is arguably still overpowered; just less so than the buffed version.

The flamer buff was obviously not enough to make the Flamer useful at all. Mostly because of the bad heat system. It was obvious hours after the patch that the Flamer still sucked.

That's it. Two weapons got a pass in three months; one got a slight nerf overall, which it needed a long time ago, and only after a couple of weeks of being ridiculously overpowered; while the other got a grossly ineffective buff, and will likely never be useful because of the bad heat system.


In the last four patches, precisely zero effort has gone into the weapon balance, and the weapons are quite clearly not balanced. It's pretty frustrating that the developers clearly don't care about balance. Probably because they can't monetize balance in some way.

[BbadAK]

I propose a buff to the small laser.

[Jun Watarase]

Im confused as to how you think the UAC 5 is overpowered when it frequently jams on the 3rd or 4th shot, leaving you completely defenceless infront of an enemy?

Even when sniping, it requires you to be exposed for far longer than poptarting with PPC/Gauss.

[Snitchkilla]

i disagree the only "imbalance" i see is LRMS lrm indirect fire is supposed to be hard to do! for example in table top( i know i know...but hear me out) lrm indirect fire was a +6 at your range so at long range is was really, really hard to do,and even then you also had to have a narc or tag on the target not just LOS.just be glad we have "high alpha sniper builds" to counter that... oh wait we dont because of all the QQ. well well guess it goes back to that old saying LESS QQ MORE PEW PEW!!! the other thing that will help balance weapons is practice just sayin

[Victor Morson]

Because this can never be overstated, this is all PGI has to do to adjust a weapon. This is not exaggeration and I yes, I am sure. This is IT.

Step 1:Load Notepad++.
Step 2: File -> Open -> Weapons XML
Step 3: Edit -> Search -> Gun Name
Step 4: Change a number.
Step 5: File -> Save
Step 6: Ship to testing, you're done!

30 seconds.

It took them 30 seconds to fix the PPC after 8 months of nightmares.
It took them 30 seconds to buff the SRM after 5 months of nonstop complaints.
It took them the same to change the UAC.

If they spent FIVE MINUTES, ohh boy!

[Iqfish]

Ah Victor again, you are such a pro, you should program your own game

[SpiralFace]

Snitchkilla, on 05 December 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:

i disagree the only "imbalance" i see is LRMS lrm indirect fire is supposed to be hard to do! for example in table top( i know i know...but hear me out) lrm indirect fire was a +6 at your range so at long range is was really, really hard to do,and even then you also had to have a narc or tag on the target not just LOS.just be glad we have "high alpha sniper builds" to counter that... oh wait we dont because of all the QQ. well well guess it goes back to that old saying LESS QQ MORE PEW PEW!!! the other thing that will help balance weapons is practice just sayin

It was a bit more complicated then that.

It added both the range modifiers of the firing model AND the spotting model. And a +1 to hit the thing to begin with.

So if your firing from extreme range and your spotter is at long range, you get a +9 mod. But if you are at medium range, and your spotter has done its job and closed the distance on your opponent, Its only a +3 mod.

Personally, I think what we have is a halfway decent "middle ground." LRM flight times and their need to have a persistent lock on the target makes them tough to use indirectly AND ACTUALLY HIT THEIR TARGET. And just like in the BG, Indirect fire is more for mid-range brawling in the right spots rather then long range support weapons (due to the slow flight times and the need to keep a persistent lock.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

I can't wait for them to release clan information and for me to not buy it!

[NuclearPanda]

Victor is kind of correct about it however. Changing a number value for a weapon, while maybe not as simplistic as he proposes, is definitely not a difficult or time consuming overall task.

There are quite a few weapons which need to be looked at, and on top of that hit detection in general needs to be addressed (this is a MUCH harder task than adjusting numerical values I admit).

• Pulse Lasers - Do something with them. Anything. Mess around with damage values, heat, recycle rates, ranges, anything really. They've been needing some tuning for a long time.
  
• Flamers - Absolutely worthless in their current form.
  
• Machine Guns - Why are these hitscan weapons?
  
• SRMs - Really, how long do we have to be in an uproar about these things? They're just not worth using at the moment. Damage seems to be "alright", but the real problem here is hit detection. You can buff damage all you want PGI, but when I'm sitting behind an Atlas less than 50m from him and unload a salvo of 4xASRM6 into his mechcheeks and do NO DAMAGE with a ping of under 40 something is damn wrong. They work sometimes. Most times not really. As I've said before, if you can't fix the hit detection then at least make them shoot puppies and rainbows so they're fun to use/look at.

P.S. - Niko Snow..... Where's mah Dogephract as promised?

[fleshwoundNPG]

SSRMs still do more damage per missle than SRMs. I cannot believe they still have not addressed that, let alone still have SRMs useless since way back during the Great Missle Nerf.

I cannot wait to unleash my Timber Wolf D on unsuspecting freebirths. 60 damage alpha on SSRMs alone. And you thought Mediums were useless NOW....

THE FIX:

SSRMs = 1.75/missle + splash damage

SRMs = 2.25/missle + splash damage

(not to mention SRMs actually regestering contact with the enemy 'mech...FIX YO HIT DETECTION, PGI)

That should be fair.

Hell, SSRMs should, realistically, have a smaller warhead due to the guidance system on the nose of the individual missles. That is just common freaking sense.

Edited by fleshwoundNPG, 05 December 2013 - 05:48 AM.

[Josef Koba]

NuclearPanda, on 05 December 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

• Pulse Lasers - Do something with them. Anything. Mess around with damage values, heat, recycle rates, ranges, anything really. They've been needing some tuning for a long time.

I could have sworn they tweaked pulse lasers, at least the large ones. Didn't they up the damage and/or lower the heat somewhat not too long ago? And I'm pretty sure I remember them lowering the beam duration. I find LPLas to be a pretty viable weapon.

However, I see absolutely no point in using UAC5s. One ton and one slot larger than AC5s, exact same reload time unless you want to risk jamming, slightly better range. I thought they made a mistake by increasing the reload time to 1.5 vice 1.1 and increasing the rounds per ton of ammo, though I know many disagree. Personally, there isn't enough of a difference to make me want to use UAC5s over AC5s; more sacrifice than it's worth.

[Sable Dove]

Josef Koba, on 05 December 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

I could have sworn they tweaked pulse lasers, at least the large ones. Didn't they up the damage and/or lower the heat somewhat not too long ago? And I'm pretty sure I remember them lowering the beam duration. I find LPLas to be a pretty viable weapon.

However, I see absolutely no point in using UAC5s. One ton and one slot larger than AC5s, exact same reload time unless you want to risk jamming, slightly better range. I thought they made a mistake by increasing the reload time to 1.5 vice 1.1 and increasing the rounds per ton of ammo, though I know many disagree. Personally, there isn't enough of a difference to make me want to use UAC5s over AC5s; more sacrifice than it's worth.

Trust me. UAC5 is a lot better than the AC5. At long ranges, you can use it the same as the AC5, but up close, just hold down the trigger and you can slam out 20 damage in just over two seconds. For each gun. The risk of jamming is low enough that you're likely to get 4-5 shots before jamming, and if you do jam, you've still probably done a lot more damage than an AC5.

There's a reason most Ilyas use a triple-UAC5 loadout. It's because for that first second and a half, you usually have a DPS of 30. Let's say you take a pair of UAC5s. Pop out of cover for about two and a half seconds. Congrats, you've done about 40 damage. Just back into cover while your weapon unjams, if it jammed at all, then repeat. Plus you have the benefit of dishing out a good deal of screenshake while you're at it.


It's not terribly overpowered, but it's still better than the AC5 by a fair margin. More than the extra cost of one crit and one ton, at least.



I guess maybe the weapons are balanced at low levels of play, which is where PGI is targeting. It just seems kinda stupid to balance for the bottom up (or I guess just the bottom, since they appear to not care about the 'up'), when it creates significant, nigh-irreparable balance issues at the top. If they balanced from the top down, it would be far more effective.

[Serpentbane]

In my opinion energy weapons ar way over nerfed. Yes, there was some issues With 6x PPC boats, but there are a far way from there to where we are today. Also, Ghost heat is wrong, although, Id' rather have that than the insane heat penality on each weapon.

Had lager mechs had more slots than smaller mechs, this could have been less of an issue, as one could fit more heat sinks. Why not add slots at the rear torso. 3 for lights, 6 for meds, 9 for heavies and 12 for Assaults, etc. Just throwing numbers here.

In my opinion Assaults should be overpowered compared to smaller mechs. Lighs should not be the first in line mechs going for Assaults head on, as is the case today. A light caught in an Assaults sights should be renamed scrap metal. There should no be balansing for those, but different roles and play style all togheter.

Instead lights should be revarded for their role strenghts. Scouting, spotting and targeting (TAG and NARC). But how ay lights using those have you en lately.

But the tends are to move us even closer to the enemy at game start, spreading the team all over the map. Also, small maps as in this game do not favor tactics very much. Scouting is not needed, as we make contac 8sec in the game.

I think this game is getting less the game I wanted for each patch. At some point Iguess I'll just as well could just go play CoD..

Edited by Serpentbane, 06 December 2013 - 04:44 AM.

[rageagainstthedyingofthelight]

Yeah, a single UAC5 is worthless, but when was the last time you saw an Phract or Jager with ONE UAC5?

[elismallz]

Victor Morson, on 05 December 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Because this can never be overstated, this is all PGI has to do to adjust a weapon. This is not exaggeration and I yes, I am sure. This is IT.

Step 1:Load Notepad++.
Step 2: File -> Open -> Weapons XML
Step 3: Edit -> Search -> Gun Name
Step 4: Change a number.
Step 5: File -> Save
Step 6: Ship to testing, you're done!

30 seconds.

It took them 30 seconds to fix the PPC after 8 months of nightmares.
It took them 30 seconds to buff the SRM after 5 months of nonstop complaints.
It took them the same to change the UAC.

If they spent FIVE MINUTES, ohh boy!

C'Mon man. That is clearly an exaggeration. You stopped at step 6....but testing is a huge time drain on testing, and there are multiple steps in testing. New telemetry needs to be gathered (over time), compared, tweaked again, tested again, regression tested, etc. Not to mention the source code stack might have optimizations built in based on assumed numbers in your "Weapons.XML". Unit tests need to be updated and reanalyzed. Cascading effects from the change need to fixed. There should be many more steps after your 6. Could we all stop pretending that software development is so amazingly easy that "all ya gotta do is change a file"?