950 replies to this topic

[WintermuteOmega]

PPC-Nerf was Long overdue and i appreciate the changes.
Ever been hit by Dual-Gauss/Dual PPC? No fun.

Every weapon should have pros and cons, and pinpoint weapons were always much more dangerous than DOT-weapons.

[Ky Vina]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 August 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:

We have tested this internally and also have had some of the high competitive players look at it. The overall feeling is that it's about right but as I said, we will keep looking at tuning this if warranted.

those competitive players want to keep the high pinpoint alpha. the result ist a resyncs of the IS ppc/ac meta! there are still mostly jumping IS mechs with ppc/ac used in competitive matches. Paul just granded thier wishes..

Edited by Metalshred, 08 August 2014 - 02:16 AM.

[Noth]

WintermuteOmega, on 08 August 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

PPC-Nerf was Long overdue and i appreciate the changes.
Ever been hit by Dual-Gauss/Dual PPC? No fun.

Every weapon should have pros and cons, and pinpoint weapons were always much more dangerous than DOT-weapons.

I have and that build is an issue. However single PPC builds and dual PPC builds were not near that issue and this change hits those while the single gauss and dual gauss builds are not effected at all.

[Texas Merc]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 02:22 AM, said:

I have and that build is an issue. However single PPC builds and dual PPC builds were not near that issue and this change hits those while the single gauss and dual gauss builds are not effected at all.

Have you ever played a game where someone can attack you and you can't attack them and then you realized that it was because it was behind a paywall?

It is a simple question really.

[Charlie Brown]

So, after reading the notes and going through some pages of comments, I'm honestly quite surprised at the level of whining of some people (probably because I don't check forums that much).

First of all, people keep referring to "community" when I think they just mean, ME and that guy who think as I do.

Not many people complain about the PPC nerf, that is understandable, PPC builds are very effective but sitting in the back, snipping from time to time just in hope to get +400 dmg at the end of the match is not that fun, so you won't see many builds like that in pugs and therefore, less whining in forums.

C-ERLL is another story, people bought clan mechs, they tried several builds and in the end play whatever they like, but most clan builds include one or two C-ERLL right now. I've seen too many clanners chain fire their fancy blue lasers non-stop in mordor or maps as such without ever overheating, and those who actually red through all the notes will remember that they said that in practice, there is not much of a change, longer beam and a bit more care on heat managment, oh my!

Imho, I haven't played the game with these changes so I like to keep my opinion by myself until I can actually try the changes instead on jumping on the rage / praise boat.

There is one thing though that I've seen in many comments and has been the drop that spilled the cup for me. People is complaining as if they were murdering their families because clanners are been tweaked - nerfed. Long gone will be the days in which clan mechs were completely OP, mechs that are only available for real money. In other words, people is complaining because they are taking action against P2W. What the actual ****?

[Volkodav]

John1352, on 07 August 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

I support the C ERLL nerf! (unlike everyone else it seems) If I'm standing 1500m away in my Jenner reporting enemy positions I shouldn't be risking a 40 point hit from a Daishi with a big targeting computer.

PPCs might be hit too hard by this though.

Standing light mech - dead light mech ^ ) - axiom!

[Noth]

Texas Merc, on 08 August 2014 - 02:28 AM, said:

Have you ever played a game where someone can attack you and you can't attack them and then you realized that it was because it was behind a paywall?

It is a simple question really.

Yes I have, I prefer brawler builds thus I've had that issue since long before the clans. Paywall doesn't matter because the complaints would still be the same if you could get them all now. If paywall is a factor then these nerfs are premature as the situation would change when they are all available for cbills after a couple months.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 02:32 AM.

[Texas Merc]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 02:31 AM, said:

Yes I have, I prefer brawler builds thus I've had that issue since long before the clans. Paywall doesn't matter because the complaints would still be the same if you could get them all now. If paywall is a factor then these nerfs are premature as the situation would change when they are all available for cbills after a couple months.

Irregardless of whether you prefer brawler builds, if i can attack you and you cannot attack me, is that fair?

Paywall or not.

[Sky Hawk]

(Lol.. 26 pages in 7 hours... nice housework for Paul,... anyway.. and 30 after 10 hours)

THIS STUFF BELOW IS JUST A THEORETICAL MATH-SIMULATION, NOTHING ELSE!

I tried to simulate on "paper", the usage of the "new CERLL"s, how it works with avoiding any Ghost Heat... If anyone see any numeric problems/failues, please tell/PM me that.. Thanks!

- Used weapons: 7 x CERLL [DW-B]
- Fire 1 weapons in every 0.75 s ( >> 0.5 s = Ghost Heat Activation Time )
- Beam duration = 2 s
- Cooldown = 3.25 s
- Simulation time intervalls = 0.75 s

Beam Active Times / [End of Cooldown]

CERLL #1 = 0.00 - 2.00 / [5.25] + 5.25 - 7.25 / [10.50]..
CERLL #2 = 0.75 - 2.75 / [6.00] + 6.00 - 8.00 / [11.25]..
CERLL #3 = 1.50 - 3.50 / [6.75] + 6.75 - 8.75 / [12.00]..
CERLL #4 = 2.25 - 4.25 / [7.50] + 7.50 - 9.50 / [12.75]..
CERLL #5 = 3.00 - 5.00 / [8.25] + 8.25 -10.25 / [13.50]..
CERLL #6 = 3.75 - 5.75 / [9.00] + 9.00 -11.00 / [14.25]..
CERLL #7 = 4.50 - 6.50 / [9.75] + 9.75 -11.75 / [15.00]..

CIRCLE ONE Active Beams:
0.00 s - B1
0.75 s - B1 + B2
1.50 s - B1 + B2 + B3
2.25 s - B2 + B3 + B4
3.00 s - B3 + B4 + B5
3.75 s - B4 + B5 + B6
4.50 s - B5 + B6 + B7

CIRCLE TWO Active Beams:
5.25 s - B6 + B7 + B1
6.00 s - B7 + B1 + B2
6.75 s - B1 + B2 + B3
7.50 s - B2 + B3 + B4
8.25 s - B3 + B4 + B5
9.00 s - B4 + B5 + B6
9.75 s - B5 + B6 + B7

Conclusion: After 1.5 s, 3 constant Beam...


Heat Management:


SIM1: Terra Therma

Heat Treashold at Terra Therma: ~ 69.5 Heat
Cooling Rate at Terra Therma: ~ 3.6 Heat/s

Circle ONE Heata:
0.00 s - 9 = 9
0.75 s - 9 + 9 = 18
1.50 s - 18 - 3.6 + 9 = 23.4
2.25 s - 23.4 - 3.6 + 9 = 28.8
3.00 s - 28.8 - 3.6 + 9 = 34.2
3.75 s - 34.2 + 9 = 43.2
4.50 s - 43.2 - 3.6 + 9 = 48.6

CIRCLE TWO:
5.25 s - 48.6 - 3.6 + 9 = 54
6.00 s - 54 - 3.6 + 9 = 59.4
6.75 s - 59.4 + 9 = 68.4
7.50 s - 68.4 - 3.6 + 9 = 73.8 ! ! - OVERHEAT ! !
8.25 s - 73.8 - 3.6 + 9 = 79.2
9.00 s - 79.2 - 3.6 + 9 = 84.5
9.75 s - 84.6 + 9 = 93.6

Max damage without Coolant: 10 x 11.25 ~ 112 DMG


SIM2: Alpine Peaks

Heat Treashold at Alpine Peaks: ~ 108.6 Heat
Cooling Rate at Alpine Peaks: ~ 6 Heat/s

Circle ONE Heata:
0.00 s - 9 = 9
0.75 s - 9 + 9 = 18
1.50 s - 18 - 6 + 9 = 21
2.25 s - 21 - 6 + 9 = 24
3.00 s - 24 - 6 + 9 = 27
3.75 s - 27 + 9 = 36
4.50 s - 36 - 6 + 9 = 39

CIRCLE TWO:
5.25 s - 39 - 6 + 9 = 42
6.00 s - 42 - 6 + 9 = 45
6.75 s - 45 + 9 = 54
7.50 s - 54 - 6 + 9 = 57
8.25 s - 57 - 6 + 9 = 60
9.00 s - 60 - 6 + 9 = 63
9.75 s - 63 + 9 = 72


TILL OVERHEAT:
10.50 s - 72 - 6 + 9 = 75
11.25 s - 75 - 6 + 9 = 78
12.00 s - 78 - 6 + 9 = 81
12.75 s - 81 + 9 = 90
13.50 s - 90 - 6 + 9 = 93
14.25 s - 93 - 6 + 9 = 96
15.00 s - 96 - 6 + 9 = 99
15.75 s - 99 + 9 = 108

Max damage without Coolant: 22 x 11.25 ~ 247 DMG



Heat Datas are from the MWO Heat Simulator, with a full leveled DW-B

Build: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0eb7710f4dea118

Edited by Sky Hawk, 08 August 2014 - 02:51 AM.

[Karamarka]

CERLL NERF IS SO BAD!
Why would you do this, LMAO more medium stacking..

GH was meant to be 3, not 1.... .seriously what is going on over there

[Volkodav]

WintermuteOmega, on 08 August 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

PPC-Nerf was Long overdue and i appreciate the changes.
Ever been hit by Dual-Gauss/Dual PPC? No fun.

Every weapon should have pros and cons, and pinpoint weapons were always much more dangerous than DOT-weapons.

Simply - change only 1 mech and all is well : )

[Jakob Knight]

So, once again we see how PGI steps away from Battletech to have things their way.

PPC/ERPPCs were always supposed to be long range weapons...that is why the PPC has a minimum range. By reducing the projectile speed, you are simply making a weapon that was already difficult or impossible to hit moving targets at range nothing more than a mid-range weapon, as all other long-range weapons (gauss rifle, ER Large Lasers) now out-perform this weapon without the drawbacks of heat and minimum range. Once again, we see that if a system or mech is working as it should, in PGI's opinion, that's wrong.

However, while that might be bearable, the change to the heat penalty to the CERLL is the real issue. Once again, we see that PGI is ready to penalize anyone who takes a stock mech (Awesomes still take penalties unless the pilot doesn't use one of the three PPCs the mech was designed to use as a -base- level of performance, and now most stock Clan mechs which use dual ERLLs are going to face similar penalties). It doesn't matter to them that two ERLLs are considered the basic configuration on many Clan mechs that use them, only that 'they are too powerful for my game'. MWO continues to jettison the Battletech name they once pledged to be the most accurate depiction of, and here once again we see the determination that a mech that is designed to use a certain weapon configuration is not welcome in MWO because of what PGI wants Battletech to be.

Not enough to increase the beam duration, no. They have to penalize just using more than one of these weapons -and- put such a huge penalty on it to ensure anyone taking a stock Timberwolf into the field will face such severe disadvantages that they -have- to change that configuration. In effect, they are saying a mech which comes standard with 2 CERLLs is as dangerous as one that comes with 2 CUAC/20s...simply because the CERLLs are actually doing enough damage to hurt something.

This was far too much for a weapons system that was doing what it was supposed to be doing. Yet, it seems PGI and a large amount of the playerbase (competitive players, I estimate, who can't see MWO as anything but a Solaris VII game) can't understand the concept that the heavy weapons in Battletech were designated that because they caused -heavy damage-. Obviously, they won't stop nerfing things until a Locust can stand in front of an Atlas and have an even chance of killing the Atlas.

Unbelievable.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 08 August 2014 - 02:49 AM.

[ebea51]

HOLY SH!T...

C-ER Large ghost heat at 2 (so now you are heat penalised for even building symmetrically) with heat penalty from 3 to 12!?!? A 9 point increase?
That's bloody rough...

Something DOES need to be done to the PPC, but this solution is disappointing and WILL NOT DECOUPLE IT FROM BEING USED WITH BALISTIC WEAPONS BECAUSE IT IS STILL ACTING LIKE A BALISTIC WEAPON!!!

The PPC will still be a ballistic weapon... a AC10 that is:
- Lighter
- Smaller
- Has better range
- Has faster projectile speed
- HAS UNLIMITED AMMO

You want to desync the PPC from the ballistic weapons, balls-up and change its behaviour FROM a ballistic weapon to a ENERGY weapon - make it a instant hit, very short duration beam weapon that has COMPLETELY different characteristics from the ballistics ingame.

That is the only sure-fire way to desync PPC from ballistics.

[Noth]

Texas Merc, on 08 August 2014 - 02:35 AM, said:

Irregardless of whether you prefer brawler builds, if i can attack you and you cannot attack me, is that fair?

Paywall or not.

If you chose that build? Then yes it is fair. It simply means I have to either work harder or use different tactics to bring you into range. I've put up with doing nothing for the first 10 minutes in a match before finally getting close enough to kill long range mechs and essentially winning the game for my team.

Not all builds are equal nor should they be. The CERLL needed something of a nerf, but such a heavy handed one is over kill. The ERPPC will not have the effect you think it will either.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 02:42 AM.

[Spr1ggan]

Corbon Zackery, on 07 August 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

LRM's- Ok to be broken and overpowered.

Everything else: Nerf/Nerf/Nerf/Nerf.


Yet again the 27% of the community Who Paul quote: ("Are the experts!") Are now making the weapon changes recommendations.

While the 73% of the community that plays in public matches get no say.

Classic Classic Classic

These are the same people who feel we need 7 Battlemasters in the game when you only have to pokeamon master 3.

Thanks

Dude what the hell are you smoking. There is no way in hell the underhive should have an equal say on balance changes as the comp community. You know. The guys that actually know how to play the game and have a better understanding of what's broken and what's not.

Sorry but i'm far more likely to listen to members of HoL, SJR, or 228 than you.

Edited by McHarg, 08 August 2014 - 02:42 AM.

[Jakob Knight]

Texas Merc, on 08 August 2014 - 02:35 AM, said:

Irregardless of whether you prefer brawler builds, if i can attack you and you cannot attack me, is that fair?

Paywall or not.

If I have taken long range weapons and pay the penalty in tonnage/heat/ammo/crits to use them and you have taken short ranged weapons for the advantages of tonnage/heat/ammo/crits/damage, then why would you think it not fair I can shoot you at range and you don't get to shoot back? You knew what you were putting in your mech, and accepted all the benefits and disadvantages that come with that. If anything, it would be unfair to the long-ranged mech if you -could- shoot back.

[Noth]

McHarg, on 08 August 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

Dude what the hell are you smoking. There is no way in hell the underhive should have an equal say on balance changes as the comp community. You know the guys that actually know how to play the game and have a better understanding of what's broken and what's not.

You do know that good games typically try and balance for both right? LoL has even completely remade champions because they were either too good at high ELOs, but sucked at low ELOs or too good at low ELOs, but sucked at high ELOs.

[Texas Merc]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

If you chose that build? Then yes it is fair. It simply means I have to either work harder or use different tactics to bring you into range. I've put up with doing nothing for the first 10 minutes in a match before finally getting close enough to kill long range mechs and essentially winning the game for my team.

Not all builds are equal nor should they be. The CERLL neded something of a nerf, but such a heavy handed one is over kill. The ERPPC will not have the effect you think it will either.

Exactly.
What you are seeing is an extension of Ghost Heat being applied to a new weapon system that this team of devs have no idea how to balance correctly. Instead of increasing heat and/or the recycle time of the more high damage weapon, they are applying a more convoluted system to a system that is already very hard to understand. It also has almost no documentation in game.

If these guys want to nerf these weapons then so be it. I just abhor them to do it in more conventional ways.

Alas, Paul has his way which is ghost heat and now when it is applied to the recent clan pack only then do you see the backlash(again).

[Grayson Pryde]

Well i couldnt laugh more about the whinning clan-purchasers here. Thats why i N.O.P.E.ed. Seriously guys, if you cry this hard about 2 weapon changes there must be an issue with the weapons. Yes, the changes are dumb and PGI knows **** about balancing but you realise this now? I mean - comon, the game isnt out since yesterday. There are still plenty of weapons left. If 2 weapon-changes realy woudl affect you so much you should think about your approach to the game.

[Mister Blastman]

Nightfire, on 07 August 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

The problem is Paul, you guys are at war with your players. You view them as opposition to be brought to heel and made to play the game the way you envisaged. What happened to giving the player the tools, tweaking them in minor adjustments to ensure fair play and then be amazed at what they do with it?
Someone pass me some more popcorn!

No what I think the problem is they are all lazy at PGI and refuse to re-code part of their game to fix their problems the proper way. You can't monetize code, ya know... (In some twisted F2P fantasyland. Back when I was a kid we used to buy these things called "games" on store shelves--complete and all with... lots of code.)