1258 replies to this topic

[Xavier]

I don't think a 50% reduction in speed is all that necessary maybe a 20% reduction but what I think needs to happen is the PPC recharge time needs to be increased to 5 or 6 seconds instead of the 4 seconds that it currently is this will de-sync the alpha of the PPC Guass combo by forcing a longer wait time ultimately its no the pinpoint alpha that is really the problem its the DPS at range that the PPC is capable of. the increased recharge time will also give brawlers a much better chance of closing to close range by deacreasin PPC damage per second by 50%.

Summary
decrease PPC speed by 20%
increase PPC cooldown time to 5 or 6 secs

[S3dition]

Livewyr, on 30 July 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Not going to bother quoting/partitioning- it seems to be causing a few problems.

Yok:
1: (I brought up SCRs as relevant to using a relatively fast mech with ER large lasers.
2: You keep talking about using the current system to do it... the one with PERFECT convergence. How is this an argument for you doing it without perfect convergence?
3: The different SRM packs and LBX's would give you a pretty good idea of the accuracy you will find with an RNG spread. You should test it versus lights.
4: Lights need reasons to play asymmetrically. (Back shots, base caps, etc..) Trying to do straight up combat in a light mech is silly, and unfortunately all but forced by PGI's reward system.
5: You are dodging the point again. (Mech sizes..)
6: Why do you insist on using personal Anecdotes from the current game? It burns my eyes. Please stop.

S3d:
How does that help with Assaults picking out a single component?
(I understand it would nerf the Banzai lights.)

---------------------------------

This is exactly my point: If you keep it so you can hit light mechs with any regularity, you can pick components on at Atlas.
If you make it so you cannot pick components on an Atlas, you will not be able to hit something the size of its leg, moving 3 times as fast.

Tighter grouping does not mean perfect grouping. They still have a cone of fire and it still gets worse when they move, just not as bad as light mechs. They could move and fire PPC's with reasonable accuracy, fire stationary with good accuracy, but never with perfect or excellent accuracy. Light mechs could remain stationary for good accuracy, but have poor to very poor accuracy while moving.

[meteorol]

The longer i think about this, the more i tend towards option 1)

First of all, please stop throwing solutions like non instant convergence around in this thread. It will never happen. Never ever again. PGI will stay with band-aid fixes like the ones they presented here. So lets discuss them and not something that won't happen anyway in this thread. (which basically means: stay on topic, PGI wants feedback to a specific question. They didn't care for all the ideas that were brought up over the last two years, the certainly won't change their mind now)

Reducing the PPC speed to 750 m/s is a horrible, horrible idea. Like "who could ever come up with something that stupid" horrible.

• The idea to bring a long range weapon that has a minimum range close to the speed of a short range brawling boomstick is absolutely cuckoo. They are made to be used at 540m optimum range. The idea of giving them the second slowest velocity of all projectile weapons is ludicrous.
  
• Result of PPCs having about the same velocity as the AC20? PPC/AC20 builds again (We are moving in circles).
  
• 40pt pinpoint alphas, just reduced the overall range
  
• You literally reduced the AC20 velocity to desync it with PPCs, and now you are seriously considering reducing PPC velocity to AC20 level again? C'mon. You can't be serious
  
• Every single mech using PPCs, even those who don't use the "dreaded" PPC/Gauss builds are punished.
  
• Non meta PPC users getting brutally shafted for a problem they didn't cause

Lets take a look at the first given option

• New mechanic that isn't really intuitve, but anyone who isn't braindead will understand within like 10 seconds
  
• Will affect 3 builds specifically: 2x Gauss/2x PPC, 2PPC/Gauss , 2 Gauss/PPC, while leaving all other builds untouched
  
• IS Meta won't change, PPC/AC5 not affected.
  
• Gauss/PPC DS will go back to PPC/AC5
  
• 50 PT pinpoint Direwolf gets shafted (=has to wait 1 second between his shots), all other builds remain untouched
  
• 2ER-PPC/Gauss TW gets shafted, reducing the maximum pinpoint dmg it can deal to 25 + backup er-mls

PGI wants to fix one very specific issue they don't like. Option 1 will fix this very specific issue and affect pretty much nothing else. Reducing the PPC speed by 50% will screw pretty much every PPC build out there. In my books, option 1 is clearly the better one of those two.

[Yokaiko]

meteorol, on 30 July 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

The longer i think about this, the more i tend towards option 1)

First of all, please stop throwing solutions like non instant convergence around in this thread. It will never happen. Never ever again. PGI will stay with band-aid fixes like the ones they presented here. So lets discuss them and not something that won't happen anyway in this thread. (which basically means: stay on topic, PGI wants feedback to a specific question. They didn't care for all the ideas that were brought up over the last two years, the certainly won't change their mind now)

Reducing the PPC speed to 750 m/s is a horrible, horrible idea. Like "who could ever come up with something that stupid" horrible.

• The idea to bring a long range weapon that has a minimum range close to the speed of a short range brawling boomstick is absolutely cuckoo. They are made to be used at 540m optimum range. The idea of giving them the second slowest velocity of all projectile weapons is ludicrous.
  
• Result of PPCs having about the same velocity as the AC20? PPC/AC20 builds again (We are moving in circles).
  
• 40pt pinpoint alphas, just reduced the overall range
  
• You literally reduced the AC20 velocity to desync it with PPCs, and now you are seriously considering reducing PPC velocity to AC20 level again? C'mon. You can't be serious
  
• Every single mech using PPCs, even those who don't use the "dreaded" PPC/Gauss builds are punished.
  
• Non meta PPC users getting brutally shafted for a problem they didn't cause

Lets take a look at the first given option

• New mechanic that isn't really intuitve, but anyone who isn't braindead will understand within like 10 seconds
  
• Will affect 3 builds specifically: 2x Gauss/2x PPC, 2PPC/Gauss , 2 Gauss/PPC, while leaving all other builds untouched
  
• IS Meta won't change, PPC/AC5 not affected.
  
• Gauss/PPC DS will go back to PPC/AC5
  
• 50 PT pinpoint Direwolf gets shafted (=has to wait 1 second between his shots), all other builds remain untouched
  
• 2ER-PPC/Gauss TW gets shafted, reducing the maximum pinpoint dmg it can deal to 25 + backup er-mls

PGI wants to fix one very specific issue they don't like. Option 1 will fix this very specific issue and affect pretty much nothing else. Reducing the PPC speed by 50% will screw pretty much every PPC build out there. In my books, option 1 is clearly the better one of those two.

Their options are ****, they have been circling the root of the issue since there were ONLY four mechs in the game.....the original 9 mlas hunchback. Their traditional solutions MOAR HEAT continue to fail miserably, so they keep getting more and more convoluted.

Without ever solving the issue.

[S3dition]

meteorol, on 30 July 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

The longer i think about this, the more i tend towards option 1)

First of all, please stop throwing solutions like non instant convergence around in this thread. It will never happen. Never ever again. PGI will stay with band-aid fixes like the ones they presented here. So lets discuss them and not something that won't happen anyway in this thread. (which basically means: stay on topic, PGI wants feedback to a specific question. They didn't care for all the ideas that were brought up over the last two years, the certainly won't change their mind now)

We're giving them feedback by saying we don't want either and explaining why. Making unreasonable demands and trying to silence people that are obviously unhappy with either choice is not helpful feedback.

And Yokaiko is correct. We've been down the street too many times before. Tweaking the numbers or adding an extremely difficult to explain mechanic will not solve the core issue of high pinpoint damage. Now they're actually discussing adding an energy component with no basis in battletech and that is, in my opinion, way too much for what is already in the game. We don't need an additional and arbitrary resource to track, and reducing PPC's to their beta state will just create the same problem we had with them in the beta.

Edited by S3dition, 30 July 2014 - 09:15 AM.

[Livewyr]

Yokaiko, on 30 July 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

1) yeah two llas, four mlas, usually fire in dual laser bursts
2) yes, using weapons that spread damage by nature.
3) 4 SRM6s double legs a light that is dumb enough to stay in range, more than once I have legged a light with an LBX20 at decent ranges, like 200 or so.
4) Lights need all of the help they can get
5) I've been saying the mech sizes are jacked for about two years now.
6) So post your statistical analysis....or do you really consider a locust (off all things) a threat?

1: ...
2: Now take those weapons that spread damage by nature. (Btw: IS (U)ACs do not.) Take those weapons that spread damage by nature, and make them arbitrarily spread damage mechanically, as well as naturally.
3: Good thing you have 24 Individual missiles with which to hit the light's legs. Since I do not know how to put 24 weapons onto my mech, let us say you try it with a single SRM6 and see how many missiles hit the light's leg.
4: In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.
5: That still avoids the point that Mech sizes (which are here to stay, and for good reason) would completely screw up any kind of RNG system you use. You know they do.
6: Arguing with you is like arguing with a 14 year old. You will say anything other than admitting you are wrong, including off-topic crap.

You are dismissed for now. Let me know when you are prepared to actually address and put forth a valid point regarding RNG spread, different mech sizes and speeds, and the Cone of Fire effect.

S3dition, on 30 July 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

Tighter grouping does not mean perfect grouping. They still have a cone of fire and it still gets worse when they move, just not as bad as light mechs. They could move and fire PPC's with reasonable accuracy, fire stationary with good accuracy, but never with perfect or excellent accuracy. Light mechs could remain stationary for good accuracy, but have poor to very poor accuracy while moving.

That still runs into the problem:

Good Accuracy means either:
Picking out a component or section on an assault mech,
or hitting a light mech at all.

[Yokaiko]

Livewyr, on 30 July 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

You are dismissed for now. Let me know when you are prepared to actually address and put forth a valid point regarding RNG spread, different mech sizes and speeds, and the Cone of Fire effect.

Why you aren't willing to hear a word of it anyway.

[Lala Satalin Deviluke]

Livewyr, on 30 July 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

1: ...
2: Now take those weapons that spread damage by nature. (Btw: IS (U)ACs do not.) Take those weapons that spread damage by nature, and make them arbitrarily spread damage mechanically, as well as naturally.

Even in a real life any smoothboared tank gun at the range of ~900 got a pinpoint accuracy. And in game we have... year 3049,
There is no such thing as spread at all.

Edited by Lala Satalin Deviluke, 30 July 2014 - 09:18 AM.

[Foust]

Finished reading the 21 pages, now to type up a response.

@PGI: I appreciate the request for feedback before throwing either of these changes into the game. Please carefully monitor this threads well thought out posts.

Of the two options presented, with the goal of being to reduce the effectiveness of the 2x CERPPC, 2x CGauss, the first option is the most effective.

However, it does not address the root cause. With the first option as presented, we simply move to the next PPFLD combo whatever that may be. Doesn't really matter what it is, just that it will be. Something will always be the most effective. The change is complicated, not intuitive and only moves the issue to the "next" thing.

With the second option we punish chassis' that rely on PPC's without the addition of a ballistic. Still if someone is determined enough, they can still deliver that same alpha. Does nothing to address the problem outside of shot timing.

Here are what I see as viable options:

Forced chain-fire works. It is simple. It has a dramatic impact on PPFLD, it increases the "skill cap" by requiring focused aim over the course of a multitude of shots AND increases TTK. It would be tedious on any mech with a large weapon count and based on the current implementation of chain-fire, prone to macro-ing.

Cone of fire works. This is not the same thing as reticle bloom. Each weapon has a potential spread value, to the limit of the reticles circle. "Sniper weapons" could have a reversed cone, more accurate at their optimal range less accurate in close. As stated in earlier posts nearly every modern FPS has this. Cue "RNG" hate.

Reticle bloom works. This is not the same as cone of fire. You balance movement vs accuracy. You can add recoil to the bloom. Honestly this is my least favorable option out of the ones that I believe would have a real impact.

All of these options carry a stigma. Cone of fire and reticle bloom both have the "RNG REMOVES SKILL" thing. (Which I don't buy into) Forced chain fire hurts the "alpha". Being able to alphastrike is a staple of mechwarrior games, along with the convenience of group firing weapons.

So with that in mind, I think a more palatable change would be to remove arm lock and increase the cool down on the gauss and PPC.

Arm lock was put in to help new players get accustomed to movement and has become a crutch. More seasoned players now rely on it to snap pinpoint shots. It does more harm than good. Remove it. I know that this does not change the "DireWhale". It's not all about him, ok?

Increasing the cool down on the Gauss and PPC allows counter play against them beyond just running Gauss and PPC yourself. That counter play could be in the form or re-positioning for a better shot while they are on CD, closing to use potent close range weapons, or just getting to better cover. These weapons are just as effective at short ranges as they are at long, that is a issue.

[Sug]

Legacy Wing, on 30 July 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

I think Paul is trying to mitigate the community damage preemptively by implying that "hey, you guys should be grateful. We COULD have done THAT!"

It's what Blizzard has done for years and it seems to work.

If you want to nerf something by 15% you tell your players it's going to be nerfed 30%, then after like a week of the forums exploding with hate you say something like "based on your feedback and further testing we've decided to change the adjustment from 30% to 15%.

That way the community feels like it matters and the devs look like heros for listening to the community.

[Yokaiko]

Sug, on 30 July 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

It's what Blizzard has done for years and it seems to work.

If you want to nerf something by 15% you tell your players it's going to be nerfed 30%, then after like a week of the forums exploding with hate you say something like "based on your feedback and further testing we've decided to change the adjustment from 30% to 15%.

That way the community feels like it matters and the devs look like heros for listening to the community.

One of the many reasons that Blizz will never get another penny from me.

Greg Street needed to be tarred and feathered 5 years ago.

[Lala Satalin Deviluke]

Sug, on 30 July 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

It's what Blizzard has done for years and it seems to work.

If you want to nerf something by 15% you tell your players it's going to be nerfed 30%, then after like a week of the forums exploding with hate you say something like "based on your feedback and further testing we've decided to change the adjustment from 30% to 15%.

That way the community feels like it matters and the devs look like heros for listening to the community.

OK.

If we talking that way...
...the should be greatful that no one don't sue them in court already for such balancing.

So, if they want to take ability to use both PPC and GR at the same time in a combo, they must give something back. Like... UPing damage of PPC and GR for exsample.

Edited by Lala Satalin Deviluke, 30 July 2014 - 09:25 AM.

[Clydewinder]

Leave PPC & Gauss as-is. Stop nerfing things because they are good.

A big slow Direwolf should be able to take that loadout if it can. The DW pilot is trading close-range vulnerability for a huge long-range hit. I don't own any clan mechs but the Direwolf should be the biggest, baddest thing out there... not something that you are going to attack head-on with your AC5 Shadowhawk and win. It should be the "OH SH** ITS A DIREWOLF" when you see one.

The real problem is that one of the counters to the 2ppc/2gauss Direwolf is broken. Indirect fire from LRM is nearly useless in many cases due to the plethora of overlapping ECM carrying mechs out there. Where big slow assault mechs should be primary targets for LRM weapons, in most games ( I should say PUG games ) those LRMs go unused for the most part due to lack of spotting & locking.

"Learn to play N00B, LRM aimbot underhive PUG slob"

Whatever. LRMs are in the game. They are part of Battletech and designed as a counterbalance to the other long-range weapons. Nerfing LRM though ridiculous ECM upsets the applecart.

[Yokaiko]

Lala Satalin Deviluke, on 30 July 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

So, if they want to take ability to use both PPC and GR at the same time in a combo, they must give something back. Like... UPing damage of PPC and GR for exsample.

Or just fixing the "spread" on the cER-PPCs.

Seriously go into the testing grounds and pull a couple mechs apart bit by bit and see just how terrible it actually is. (spoiler) you often aren't getting that 5 point spread, a lot of the time you aren't getting it at all.

Clydewinder, on 30 July 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

Leave PPC & Gauss as-is. Stop nerfing things because they are good.

A big slow Direwolf should be able to take that loadout if it can. The DW pilot is trading close-range vulnerability for a huge long-range hit. I don't own any clan mechs but the Direwolf should be the biggest, baddest thing out there... not something that you are going to attack head-on with your AC5 Shadowhawk and win. It should be the "OH SH** ITS A DIREWOLF" when you see one.

The real problem is that one of the counters to the 2ppc/2gauss Direwolf is broken. Indirect fire from LRM is nearly useless in many cases due to the plethora of overlapping ECM carrying mechs out there. Where big slow assault mechs should be primary targets for LRM weapons, in most games ( I should say PUG games ) those LRMs go unused for the most part due to lack of spotting & locking.

"Learn to play N00B, LRM aimbot underhive PUG slob"

Whatever. LRMs are in the game. They are part of Battletech and designed as a counterbalance to the other long-range weapons. Nerfing LRM though ridiculous ECM upsets the applecart.

Also take a LRM 40 clan mech into the test grounds and blow up the atlas with it. See how many tons of ammo THAT takes.

.....then tell me LRM is overpowered afterwards.

[Lala Satalin Deviluke]

Clydewinder, on 30 July 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

Leave PPC & Gauss as-is. Stop nerfing things because they are good.

A big slow Direwolf should be able to take that loadout if it can. The DW pilot is trading close-range vulnerability for a huge long-range hit. I don't own any clan mechs but the Direwolf should be the biggest, baddest thing out there... not something that you are going to attack head-on with your AC5 Shadowhawk and win. It should be the "OH SH** ITS A DIREWOLF" when you see one.

The real problem is that one of the counters to the 2ppc/2gauss Direwolf is broken. Indirect fire from LRM is nearly useless in many cases due to the plethora of overlapping ECM carrying mechs out there. Where big slow assault mechs should be primary targets for LRM weapons, in most games ( I should say PUG games ) those LRMs go unused for the most part due to lack of spotting & locking.

"Learn to play N00B, LRM aimbot underhive PUG slob"

Whatever. LRMs are in the game. They are part of Battletech and designed as a counterbalance to the other long-range weapons. Nerfing LRM though ridiculous ECM upsets the applecart.

Exactly. DW can be nerfed only by skill and adding such counterparts like Pillager and King Crab, but not by nerfing some weapons.

[S3dition]

Livewyr, on 30 July 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

1: ...
2: Now take those weapons that spread damage by nature. (Btw: IS (U)ACs do not.) Take those weapons that spread damage by nature, and make them arbitrarily spread damage mechanically, as well as naturally.
3: Good thing you have 24 Individual missiles with which to hit the light's legs. Since I do not know how to put 24 weapons onto my mech, let us say you try it with a single SRM6 and see how many missiles hit the light's leg.
4: In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.
5: That still avoids the point that Mech sizes (which are here to stay, and for good reason) would completely screw up any kind of RNG system you use. You know they do.
6: Arguing with you is like arguing with a 14 year old. You will say anything other than admitting you are wrong, including off-topic crap.

You are dismissed for now. Let me know when you are prepared to actually address and put forth a valid point regarding RNG spread, different mech sizes and speeds, and the Cone of Fire effect.



That still runs into the problem:

Good Accuracy means either:
Picking out a component or section on an assault mech,
or hitting a light mech at all.

You can't make that call. You have no clue how large the cone of fire is with "good accuracy" That's a completely ambiguous term. I envision good accuracy as hitting somwhere between the left and right arm on an atlas at 650 meters. That's 6 possible components you could hit at the PPC's long range, assuming neither you or your target is moving. And you have no control over which component is hit.

How is that doing pinpoint damage in any way? How is that even remotely close to hitting the center torso every time on a moving target at 800+ meters like you can do now?

The PPC isn't even supposed to do ANY damage past 650 meters. The fact that it can is purely PGI's doing, and that's a really long range to retain accuracy for a combat vehicle that has a 1000m radar range. Good accuracy translates to hitting somewhere on the target at the maximum effective range, assuming both mechs are stationary. Excellent accuracy is hitting the component you aim for. Perfect accuracy is hitting the pixel you aim at (current state).

So, yes, good accuracy is fine.

[Yokaiko]

Lala Satalin Deviluke, on 30 July 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Exactly. DW can be nerfed only by skill and adding such counterparts like Pillager and King Crab, but not by nerfing some weapons.

Or a SRM commando, or Jenner

.....god help both catch you, you don't stand a chance.

[Felio]

Slowing the PPC projectile will make it much less useful as a sniping weapon. It also does nothing to nerf the gauss/PPC combo at shorter ranges.

Desyncing the firing is a much better solution, though I think 0.5 seconds is not long enough.

You also need to limit gauss charging to 1 rifle at a time. PPCs get 20 damage before ghost heat, LLs get about 20 (damage over time, no less), AC/20s get 20... why should gauss rifles, which travel farther and faster and can be fired indefinitely without heat, get 30?

It should be 2 PPCs, 1 PPC + 1 gauss, or 1 gauss.

Edited by Felio, 30 July 2014 - 09:33 AM.

[Sug]

S3dition, on 30 July 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

The PPC isn't even supposed to do ANY damage past 650 meters. The fact that it can is purely PGI's doing, and that's a really long range to retain accuracy for a combat vehicle that has a 1000m radar range.

Hey yeah i forgot about that. They should just do that. Have the PPC completely fizzle out at 650m. Makes as much sense as missiles that hit an invisible wall at exactly 270m or 1000m.

[S3dition]

Lala Satalin Deviluke, on 30 July 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Even in a real life any smoothboared tank gun at the range of ~900 got a pinpoint accuracy. And in game we have... year 3049,
There is no such thing as spread at all.

In 3049, radar has a maximum range that's shorter than the visual acquisition range by half and the "tank gun" has a range of 270 meters. It also causes the fusion reactor to generate more heat than firing a laser that can cut through 12" of steel.

If you want realism, you need to look for another game. This thread is about balance, not realism.