479 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Noesis, on 09 January 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

Clearly your "opinions" are known to me, Varent.

I'll leave it to PGI to decide.

Expect more incoming ballistic nerfs then?

I actually loved the last one. it was just what the ac20 and 10 needed. I would love to see a range decrease on both of those as well though im kinda scared to mention it since it appears that thought isnt popular.

[Varent]

Bront, on 09 January 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Should? probably. In game? It depends on the pilot. In my Atlas, I rarely fear a solo Light, as I can usually out maneuver them enough to keep them in my sights and fend them off for a while till I either wear them down or help arrives. In my victor? I can hunt lights. In my stalkers and Battlemaster? Outside of the missile boat, they pack enough lasers to keep the lights at bay outside of a swarm and can usually protect my back.

Meanwhile, in my Jenners, Ravens, Commandos, Locusts and Cicadas (they're big lights), I find Atlases fairly easy targets if they're slow, they sacked their leg armor, or they are busy attacking another mech. If they're focused on me, it depends on the skill of the pilot. A good pilot can fend me off (or simply kill me if they have the right anti-light weapons), a poor pilot can't deal with the speed well. It is not as clear cut as you make it out to be in MWO (like it should be to some degree more than it is). The biggest problems these mechs tend to have honestly is heat, since they can't fit as many HS as larger mechs, and when taking down a larger mech will need to be firing constantly more than the larger mech. the buffs I suggested would, IMHO, go further to make lights competitive against more assaults. It would also buff mediums a bit for similar reasons, and make LLs more competitive on heavies/assaults.

<disclaimer. I am in no way attempting to brag about how good/bad a pilot I am. I'm simply noting from my experiences, as well as observations from watching/playing with others, there is a thread on mech agility that explains why heavies/assautls are too agile though that's a good read>

It may come down to ELO. Keep in mind victors in high elo are all jump snipers, so are highlanders. atlas are basically damage sponges and dont really run streaks. Stalkers are alpha cannons, Awesome are not played, nor are battlemasters. So when a light gets on top of an assault. Its usually death. keep in mind most assaults have like... 18 Center rear armor at most. Many of them even are at 16 and 14 since they keep alot of armor up front to absorn the alphas they are recieving. That means at most you have to deal 36 damage to the rear of a mech to core through it into the underside.

6 medium lasers held on target (which is not hard to do being that light and against a slow moving assault) will get through that and possibly kill a mech in 2 shots.

Hence why I have issuing thing they need a buff since that is a common run grouping on many jenners.

[Bront]

Varent, on 09 January 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Im actually not trying be belligerent at all. Im sorry if its coming across that way.

You're coming across as set in your ways (this is not nessessarily a bad thing), but hardly belligerent. At least that's how I've been taking it.

FWIW, I like MLs and LLs, and use them quite a bit. It doesn't mean that I don't think they both need some love, and MLs are where I notice the biggest issue with heat disparity, and combined with range and other issues, I often forgo an ML or two when I can because they're more expendable than I feel they should be, and they build up heat much too fast compared to other comparable options.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 09 January 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

I actually loved the last one. it was just what the ac20 and 10 needed. I would love to see a range decrease on both of those as well though im kinda scared to mention it since it appears that thought isnt popular.

Actually tbh, I do like the changes as it does help the short game.

It was a also nice to see PGI apply subtle changes with trying to move the Meta away from the long game. The idea of doing it with small measured steps also gives confidence that they are at least trying to see how things effect the Meta so as to try and not simply generate FOTM issues and retain some aspect of continuity.

So yes I do agree the nerfs though hard to swallow by some will help other play styles to become more emergent and I like it for that reason. But perhaps a WIP, I'm personally still evaluating the changes for myself but it is nice to see small moves as opposed to paradigm shifts.

Edited by Noesis, 09 January 2014 - 12:47 PM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 09 January 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

Actually tbh, I do like the changes as it does help the short game.

It was a also nice to see PGI apply subtle changes with trying to move the Meta away from the long game. The idea of doing it with small measured steps also gives confidence that they are at least trying to see how things effect the Meta so as to try and not simply generate FOTM issues and retain some aspect of continuity.

So yes I do agree the nerfs though hard to swallow by some will help other play styles to become more emergent and I like it for that reason. But perhaps a WIP, I'm personally still evaluating the changes for myself but it is nice to see small moves as opposed to paradigm shifts.

curiously, what would be your thoughts on lowering those two weapons effective range. (as I said not a popular opinion). I like it becuase it makes them more brawling oriented and takes away from jump sniping some.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 09 January 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

curiously, what would be your thoughts on lowering those two weapons effective range. (as I said not a popular opinion). I like it becuase it makes them more brawling oriented and takes away from jump sniping some.

I think It would help game play to reduce ballistics range, at least 5's and above down to the "2x scale" for distances as it would only help to reduce reliance on the longer ranged Meta we have. I think AC2 and Gauss could then be left as a the genuine long range weapons.

This would help to reduce some instances of the dominance of sniper Meta and allow other roles to work better due to the time and or distance now afforded as contingency to employ their tactics.

It still leaves dominant weapons at range however, so as no surprise I still like the idea of buffing the short game also and considering other options as small changes in a number of places also that may not be directly related to weapons, e.g. Medium mech size reductions. But any nerf to the long game is improving the short game by equivalence.

LRM range would also become more useful or apparent as a result.

I just don't really have a good handle of how much of a change it would be, but somehow it feels like a good idea. Which isn't very scientific I know.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 09 January 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

I think It would help game play to reduce ballistics range, at least 5's and above down to the "2x scale" for distances as it would only help to reduce reliance on the longer ranged Meta we have. I think AC2 and Gauss could then be left as a the genuine long range weapons.

This would help to reduce some instances of the dominance of sniper Meta and allow other roles to work better due to the time and or distance now afforded as contingency to employ their tactics.

It still leaves dominant weapons at range however, so as no surprise I still like the idea of buffing the short game also and considering other options as small changes in a number of places also that may not be directly related to weapons, e.g. Medium mech size reductions. But any nerf to the long game is improving the short game by equivalence.

LRM range would also become more useful or apparent as a result.

I just don't really have a good handle of how much of a change it would be, but somehow it feels like a good idea. Which isn't very scientific I know.

We agree on something whole heartedly then Noesis.

[Livewyr]

Myomes, on 09 January 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

try to nerf 5 weapons to fit within your failed paradigm of game design because your name is Russel bullock, or buff the odd weapon out. Which is better for the game and faster?

Please point to me the odd weapon out needing buffed?

I think, according to all the threads I've seen of late, the "odd weapon out" is everything outside of the PPC/AC20/AC5 and maybe the UAC5.

I personally see nothing wrong with the Lasers (outside Pulse lasers). I think they just suck when compared to the PPC/ACs combination- and the PPC/AC combination seems to tear pretty big holes in armor fairly quickly. So perhaps instead of making BOTH lasers, and PPCS/ACs tear holes in armor quickly, we should nerf the PPCs/ACs down to something a little more reasonable.

-------------------------------------------
Here's the question I think you should be thinking about: "What is the proper balance between weapon strength versus durability of armor?"

(Expanding: One extreme is a CoD Hardcore mode where the first mech to see the other one wins, the other extreme is a couple of mechs shooting each other for 10 minutes- where is a good middleground?)

[Nihtgenga]

Myomes, on 09 January 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

try to nerf 5 weapons to fit within your failed paradigm of game design because your name is Russel bullock, or buff the odd weapon out. Which is better for the game and faster?

Since I guess you don't prefer a CS-like no-brainer "shoot first, win the game"-playstyle over matches being decided by tactics and pilot skill (otherwise, why play a BT-based game?), the definitively better way is to NOT buff too much. The more buffs, the more the game turns to a mindless insta-kill spree - which is why PGI saw themselves forced to increased mech durability, altered basic weapon properties and introduce ghost heat after having buffed the weapons to 2-3 times faster firing for nice dakka-dakka and pew-pew optics to keep the game playable on the current level...

Think it in a different way: If weapons would be less insta-kill and pinpoint (in case of ACs), this would open a window for rescaling the weapons and drop the darn ghost heat "system", which is confusing and distorting the balancing even more than it helps.

Sandpit, on 09 January 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

I saw in here somewhere that someone had suggested adjusting beam damage by having lasers front load a bit f their damage. The mroe I think about it the more I like that idea as well. Have 50% of a lasers damage done upon initial impact but have the remaining 50% spread throughout the beam duration. It would give them a slightly higher punch on the front end

Won't help, since that would only turn the lasers into a different form of AC and render pulse lasers completely superflous.

Varent, on 09 January 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

keep in mind most assaults have like... 18 Center rear armor at most. Many of them even are at 16 and 14 since they keep alot of armor up front to absorn the alphas they are recieving. That means at most you have to deal 36 damage to the rear of a mech to core through it into the underside.

6 medium lasers held on target (which is not hard to do being that light and against a slow moving assault) will get through that and possibly kill a mech in 2 shots.

Hence why I have issuing thing they need a buff since that is a common run grouping on many jenners.

I fully agree. The consequence would be probably that the ghost heat calculation would be altered again, which would nerf the dedicated heavier/slower facemelter-builds like the Boar's Head, Battlemaster, Quickdraw and Hunchback-4P even more, together with the Cicadas, Jenners and Death's Knell.

The thing most people tend to not see is, that in a modular weaponry system like MW/BT, there is no "changing just one weapon", because this change will inevitably affect the balancing relations, hence ALL weapons/builds (more or less). Because even if you do not run the weapon in question, you might face it on the battlefield.

[kapusta11]

Varent, on 09 January 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

It may come down to ELO. Keep in mind victors in high elo are all jump snipers, so are highlanders. atlas are basically damage sponges and dont really run streaks. Stalkers are alpha cannons, Awesome are not played, nor are battlemasters. So when a light gets on top of an assault. Its usually death. keep in mind most assaults have like... 18 Center rear armor at most. Many of them even are at 16 and 14 since they keep alot of armor up front to absorn the alphas they are recieving. That means at most you have to deal 36 damage to the rear of a mech to core through it into the underside.

6 medium lasers held on target (which is not hard to do being that light and against a slow moving assault) will get through that and possibly kill a mech in 2 shots.

Hence why I have issuing thing they need a buff since that is a common run grouping on many jenners.

Everyting above just show that you have no idea what you're takling about, I bet you haven't piloted a light mech at all. 36 damage? Where did it came from? Internals are max armor divided by two thus assault have 50-60 hp internals. Oh I get it, you thought that front and rear internals are separate thing? Well now you know that it's not. And 6 mlasers is a pretty hot jenner with paper armor and long enough recycle times for you to react if you're any good pilot..

A light that aggroed more than 1 mech is a dead light thus most of the time they find use in duels and brawls where there are more important targets to fire at.

[Nihtgenga]

kapusta11, on 10 January 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:

And 6 mlasers is a pretty hot jenner with paper armor and long enough recycle times for you to react if you're any good pilot..

A light that aggroed more than 1 mech is a dead light thus most of the time they find use in duels and brawls where there are more important targets to fire at.

These things you mention are dependent on your pilot skill, right? Now, read again about what ELO is. Basic underlying statement he made (which I consider to be correct) is:
The more powerful the weapons, the better the chances for a low skill pilot to kill against a good pilot by landing a lucky shot.

[Joseph Mallan]

Varent, on 09 January 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

I actually loved the last one. it was just what the ac20 and 10 needed. I would love to see a range decrease on both of those as well though im kinda scared to mention it since it appears that thought isnt popular.

Needed, I will not say, but at least the Velocity is not less than the slowest we have IRL.

[Varent]

kapusta11, on 10 January 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:

Everyting above just show that you have no idea what you're takling about, I bet you haven't piloted a light mech at all. 36 damage? Where did it came from? Internals are max armor divided by two thus assault have 50-60 hp internals. Oh I get it, you thought that front and rear internals are separate thing? Well now you know that it's not. And 6 mlasers is a pretty hot jenner with paper armor and long enough recycle times for you to react if you're any good pilot..

A light that aggroed more than 1 mech is a dead light thus most of the time they find use in duels and brawls where there are more important targets to fire at.

do the math on armor. check how much armor you have on the back of a typical assault mech.

I actually pilot lights alot. Usually end up the light pilot in alot of our organized 12 man drops because im simply very good at it and understand the mechanics very well.

2 alphas with 6 medium lasers cores an atlas from behind. One more short and maybe a few lasy lasers draped across will usually kill one.

Also 6 medium lasers can alpha with 14 double heat sinks about 5 times before overheating.

try again with your math friend.

[Cerberias]

Already addressed his lack of math in a previous post, no, 36 armor will not core someone out from the rear, if they have 16 rear armor on a highlander it's 72 armor to peel through. 6 medlas cannot alpha 5 times before overheating with 14 dhs, another stat pulled out of your arse. An atlas (who will usually have more rear armor as they're a brawler), has 62 INTERNAL armor not including any external rear armor, so once again, your math is off on the 2 alphas to core. Seeing a pattern here?

Also, if you get a jenner in behind our poptart lance, without us knowing, my lights messed up. You cant balance things for pugs, because pugs are generally worse and have less teamwork, balance for the good players and it trickles down.

Edited by Cerberias, 10 January 2014 - 06:29 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

lasers are the meter. if its outdamaging lasers heavily, its OP.

upping laser damage would be far more problematic than many of you think

[Myomes]

The nerf to ballistics velocity is also a stealth nerf to slower mechs and lower engine size. You need to be gauge and judge in snap motions to hit close lights running laterally. Anyone using a slower mech will discover that is impossible. Thus, this, along with all of the other huge advantages of speed in this game, will reinforce the shallow and non-tactical gameplay of SpeedBrawlMechsOnline.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 10 January 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

Also 6 medium lasers can alpha with 14 double heat sinks about 5 times before overheating.

try again with your math friend.

OK two AC10's can do the equivalent 3 times without overheating (needing only 3 tons of ammo) in the time in takes 6 MLs to do it twice with one overheat and at least 20s needed to cool down in between before then overheating again if fire is sustained.

3:2 or more for same fire output capability and having greater range. This if anything simply helps to confirm ballistics effectiveness and longevity in comparison to lasers.

How's that for math?

[Craig Steele]

The maths posts raise the often overlooked part of the weapons equation, how long are you comparing them for. If you assume equal accuracy, the question is how long is the time line.

If it take a short time, Ballistics are superior, if it takes longer the ammo factor comes into play.

The problem imo is that currently, mechs are not durable enough. Far to easy to destroy a mech. This "pushes" the equation in favour of the ballistics to a large degree.

If mechs were more durable, the balance would move the other way, the question is finding the right balance.

I for one am tired of fighting / positioning for 2 minutes and then spending 5 minutes loading a new game and in MM.

I'm over it personally

[Anais Opal]

The Flying Gecko, on 07 January 2014 - 10:28 PM, said:

You left out "Pulse lasers are (almost) always inferior to their regular laser counterparts."

Yet another one of these threads? I must have read at least a dozen all stating the same thing. I don't think PGI has any intention of fixing things. At least not any time soon. They are SO far behind there projections (community warfare? UI2.0?) that big changes to the weapons are probably too time consuming, and don't have an immediate dollar value attached to them, and thus aren't worth looking into.

On the one hand, the game is pretty good. On the other hand, it should/could be SO much better.

Actually, modifying laser values is a 10 second adjustment, they are controlled by XML files buried in the client. Quick pass with Notepad++ and you done.

[Lykaon]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

So after saying all this you still want to Nerf AC20s instead of Fix Lasers???? And you call yourself competitive?

Where did I say nerf AC20? did I fall into a trance and type that somewhere?

Actualy I am opposed to altering the core functionality of weapon performances.

Others have suggested altering ACs to burst weapons and that in my opinion is not the best course of action.

One of the unique characteristics of ACs is the ability to snap fire and maximize cover use.This enriches tactical options cloning the firing mechanics from beam weapons reduces tactical options so,I dislike those options.

The thing is almost every weapon balance thread focuses entirely upon the weapon's mechanics.How much damage it does,how long is the range,what rate of fire etc.

The problem with this line of thinking is it removes the weapons from their actual functional enviorments.No one seems to be concerned with how is damage applied to armor or how the critical hit mechanics are effected by a weapon's applied damage or is there any real discussion about how much damage is to much or how long should X armor value survive Y damage applied.

The underlaying issue is dispersed damage is inferior to concentrated damage when time to kill is the perameters for the discussion.And honestly time to kill is a driving factor in success of a battle.If I can kill an enemy mech in 12 seconds with grouped AC and PPCs and be onto the next I am more efficently causing damage than if I spend 20-30 seconds shooting LRMs or slashing lasers over several body locations at long range vs a moving target.

My opinion is time to kill is too short when group fired pinpoint damage is being applied to targets.And certainly creating shortened time to kill perameters over any other weapon's damage application mechanics.

So no I do not think that increasing laser's effectivness to emulate the (in my opinion) excessive amounts of concentrated damage applied by ACs like multiple autocannon 20s.

This would result in an additional weapon class perpertrating undesireable effects.


I think the mechanic that is in need of looking into is not weapon stats but the armor and critical hit mechanics.

I think I have clearly defined what I see as a disproportionate damage dealing mechanic that heavily favors front loading concentrated damage over all other damage application methods.

The result of this lopsided mechanics issue is a meta revolving around a mechanics failure and not a meta revolving around strategy and tactics detached from exploiting a game mechanics failure.

With an issue like this tactical and strategic options are narrowed game growth is stunted and becoming very bored is a possibility for players.

A healthy meta should be ..

Tactics evolve to handle strong strategies,Later strategies evolve to counter the tactics and newer tactics are developed to handle an evolved strategy.

(ie. base rushing to win via base cap is successful the counter tactic evolves using a defense force and a skirmishing force to pincer the base rushers.Later the base rushers evolve a tactic of feighning a rush to take out the smaller flanking force before moving to cap etc...)

What we have now is.

Game mechanics failures spawn a meta that maximizes exploiting the mechanics and tactics evolve to maximize effectivness of exploiting the mechanics.

(ie. build mechs to fire pinpoint alphas of 30+.This is countered by building more of the same,the evolved strategy to deal with this is poptarting to limit exposure to the 30+ alphas that become prolific due to the meta favoring the exploit tactics)

Do you see my point now?