22 replies to this topic

[Ph30nix]

Before people rage at me think about this first

ALL but the most recent IS mech/weapon nerfs were based on the performence of said mechs/weapons VS IS MECHS!!!!

once they fully roll out clan vs IS battles that will no longer be the case.
It won't matter that a Catapult has torso twist far enough to be able to lick its own backside(like the stormcrow)
It wont matter if the highlander/victor turn really fast for assaults.
it wont matter if the sway back is the ninja assasin of death in carnate.

Heck you could probably get away with tweaking some of the ghost heat levels for IS mechs
3 PPC now triggers ghost heat up from 2
3 LL/ERLL now trigger ghost heat up from 2
2 ac/20 now trigger ghost heat up from 1
etc etc etc

Personally i feel the survival time of clan mechs is close to what everyone should have (assuming they know how to twist). I feel that reverting some of the IS nerfs would be a good start in the right direction because for one clan mechs would be alittle more careful when trying ot brawl an IS mech so their DPS would go down some which would increase survival time of the IS mechs.

Option B (which i think would go miles to fix things) would be introduce Light Fusion engines for IS, Could say that we are being given access to experimental weapon/equipment for those if people have a timeline issue. Would give IS even more surviability and also free up tonage for the heavies/assaults to take heavier weapons so.

Oh or at the very least LOWER MEDIUM LASER HEAT!!!!

Edited by Ph30nix, 30 August 2014 - 05:32 AM.

[El Bandito]

Why would PGI do it now, when they haven't done it for ages, even after dozens of threads saying similar stuff? IMO, they are more concerned about having longer TTK.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 August 2014 - 05:54 AM.

[Ph30nix]

El Bandito, on 30 August 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

Why would PGI do it now, when they haven't done it for ages, even after dozens of threads saying similar stuff? IMO, they are more concerned about having longer TTK.

which if you read my full post you would see alot of these changes WOULD INCREASE TTK without making people feel like their weapons were garbage.

[El Bandito]

Ph30nix, on 30 August 2014 - 06:03 AM, said:

which if you read my full post you would see alot of these changes WOULD INCREASE TTK without making people feel like their weapons were garbage.

Alot of them will increase TTK eh?

Let's see your points in the OP.

1. Increase GH limit. Less TTK.

2. Light Engine. More TTK.

3. Reduce ML heat. Less TTK.

4. Suggesting to increase IS brawl capability by reverting the nerfs so that Clan mechs will be "more careful" and their DPS will be reduced. Huh? That still means IS TTK will go down.

Of your suggestions, only the Light engine definitely gives the potential of more TTK. Anything else is in contrary or has trade-offs.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 August 2014 - 06:16 AM.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Well I for one would prefer un-nerfing to nerf all things to nothing.

I am really tired of the nerf all things mentality that run about the forums here.

[Bacl]

Remember the time when the IS UltraAC5 was the top weapon? It was the new meta for a week then magically they have a sell on Firebrand and Murommet, both cassis can easily mount 2 or 3 of these+ other support weapons. After the sell they nerf the UAC5 with a much greater jamming chance. Magical...

There were few others manipulation like so but they were more subtle. I see a pathern here, why would they nerf IS mech? To sell clans of course!

I am sure they will nerf the clan mech really hard when there all out for cbills. I have the feeling its already starting.

[Mcgral18]

The Nerfinator is never going to let go of his precious nerfs.

He will make their 75 tonner turn like a 100 tonner rather than our 80 tonner turn like an 80 tonner.


HoverJets are Working as Intended™ for 90 tonners.

Edited by Mcgral18, 30 August 2014 - 06:45 AM.

[Ph30nix]

El Bandito, on 30 August 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:

Alot of them will increase TTK eh?

Let's see your points in the OP.

1. Increase GH limit. Less TTK.

2. Light Engine. More TTK.

3. Reduce ML heat. Less TTK.

4. Suggesting to increase IS brawl capability by reverting the nerfs so that Clan mechs will be "more careful" and their DPS will be reduced. Huh? That still means IS TTK will go down.

Of your suggestions, only the Light engine definitely gives the potential of more TTK. Anything else is in contrary or has trade-offs.

ghost heat ON IS WEAPONS not clan,
also if a clan mech is scared to bring all its weapon onto an enemy mech for their full duration (longer burn times remember) then their DPS will go down, meaning IS mechs will live longer.
how brawling buffs to IS would reduce IS TTK is pretty backwards.

[kapusta11]

If the goal is to increase TTK why not just increase armor values? Why nerf everything making the game frustrating to play?

[AntiCitizenJuan]

I actually prefer the prevention of high alpha bullshit at this point, so ghost heat stays in my book.

Lower ML heat to original values

[Ph30nix]

kapusta11, on 30 August 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

If the goal is to increase TTK why not just increase armor values? Why nerf everything making the game frustrating to play?

because increasing armor values screws over light mechs,

going from say 20pnts of armor to 40 is maybe an extra alpha, going from 160 to 320= you might as well not even bothering piloting a light mech and trying to kill this thing

AntiCitizenJuan, on 30 August 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

I actually prefer the prevention of high alpha bullshit at this point, so ghost heat stays in my book.

Lower ML heat to original values

it wouldnt be a huge change, 1 extra weapon of each for IS mechs only.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Ph30nix, on 30 August 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

it wouldnt be a huge change, 1 extra weapon of each for IS mechs only.

Thats 20 pinpoint damage for PPCs back to 30. We dont need to go through that bullshit again like we did for an entire year.

As for LLs, chain firing is better for gameplay than everyone just constantly blowing their loads.
Running 3 or 4 on chain works well enough.

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 30 August 2014 - 07:41 AM.

[kapusta11]

Ph30nix, on 30 August 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

because increasing armor values screws over light mechs,

going from say 20pnts of armor to 40 is maybe an extra alpha, going from 160 to 320= you might as well not even bothering piloting a light mech and trying to kill this thing

I don't follow your logic, so if I have 20 30 armor in a light mech right now and assaults have up to 160 110 it's totally ok to play light mechs but with increased values it's not?

[Zack Esseth]

I don't think reverting the IS nerfs is going to fix much. Most of the IS nerfs where to bring Inner Sphere weapons in line with one another, and wile they still aren't all balanced amongst them selves, taking them back would likely just make IS mechs revert to one gun and clans still walk all over them. The other option would be to stop nerfing clans and start buffing IS and I like that more, save for the part where Clans aren't balanced amongst themselves yet either.

[VagGR]

Bacl, on 30 August 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Remember the time when the IS UltraAC5 was the top weapon? It was the new meta for a week then magically they have a sell on Firebrand and Murommet, both cassis can easily mount 2 or 3 of these+ other support weapons. After the sell they nerf the UAC5 with a much greater jamming chance. Magical...

There were few others manipulation like so but they were more subtle. I see a pathern here, why would they nerf IS mech? To sell clans of course!

I am sure they will nerf the clan mech really hard when there all out for cbills. I have the feeling its already starting.

aaah these forums..i wont take part in this conversation but if you wonna give an example give the full story.

the uac5 jam rate was at 25% one day they decide to reduce it to 15% (and thats when the uac5 became the meta for a week as you said) then firebrand and muroments go on sale and about a week later they increased the uac5 jam rate to 20%. So what you ended up with was a jam rate that was not godlike (15%) but it was still better that the original 25%. So this is something you should not complain about....

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

Ph30nix, on 30 August 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

it wouldnt be a huge change, 1 extra weapon of each for IS mechs only.

Why just not give whole TechReadOut-3049 armory to IS, revert Gauss-PPC-ERLL nerf and that's it. Just live it where this are and bring more new mechs. Like they did with Vendy(Vendicator)... it's still for MC's b-sides.

Zack Esseth, on 30 August 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:

to stop nerfing clans and start buffing IS

Your words in Paulinator ears.

[Xarian]

I agree with reducing old nerfs on IS equipment/mechs, but not in the way that OP suggested. The argument that "making weapons scarier will make players more careful and increase TTK" is, frankly, complete and utter rubbish. Increasing weapon damage per second = lower TTK, period.

Ghost heat values are fine where they are (note that I don't like GH at all, but it's the only system we have in place right now to limit high-damage alphas). Medium Lasers should be reverted back to TT heat values (Clan weapons also).

Increasing armor is a great idea. 30% more armor across the board would not only increase TTK, it would also make ammo weapons less efficient. It would also make lights more viable, contrary to OP's backwards beliefs - lights get more mileage out of their armor than non-lights because they usually get taken out with "lucky shots".

Also a great idea would be to fundamentally change Ferro Fibrous armor, which all IS mechs have access to but only a few Clan mechs use. Right now it makes your armor very slightly lighter, which returns some small amount of tonnage - but always less than endosteel; it is, in effect, a worse version of endosteel chassis. If you make it so FF armor increases armor values by a set amount (15% for example), even exceeding the mech's cap, then it becomes viable. And it makes light mechs better, too.

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

Xarian, on 30 August 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

I agree with reducing old nerfs on IS equipment/mechs, but not in the way that OP suggested. The argument that "making weapons scarier will make players more careful and increase TTK

Unfortunately I have to tell you... that people will not be more careful, they or use LURMs much... or sits on clan mechs.

[Ph30nix]

kapusta11, on 30 August 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

I don't follow your logic, so if I have 20 30 armor in a light mech right now and assaults have up to 160 110 it's totally ok to play light mechs but with increased values it's not?

i was just pulling numbers out my rear but if you double armor (again) its going to be a nerf to lights.
Since their limited firepower is going to have an even harder time doing any type of damage to heavier mechs.
double armor to a light will barely be noticed by the bigger mechs, while double armor on an assault will mean a light mech will take 2x longer to actualy kill them.
so if a light has a 20pnt alpha
an assault has a 60-90 pnt alpha
light gets 30 extra armor
assault get 110 extra armor
the assault will barely notice a differnce in time to kill vs a light, while the light will barely be able to scratch an assault.

[Mcgral18]

Ph30nix, on 30 August 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

i was just pulling numbers out my rear but if you double armor (again) its going to be a nerf to lights.
Since their limited firepower is going to have an even harder time doing any type of damage to heavier mechs.
double armor to a light will barely be noticed by the bigger mechs, while double armor on an assault will mean a light mech will take 2x longer to actualy kill them.
so if a light has a 20pnt alpha
an assault has a 60-90 pnt alpha
light gets 30 extra armor
assault get 110 extra armor
the assault will barely notice a differnce in time to kill vs a light, while the light will barely be able to scratch an assault.

Flat increase helps lights more than assaults.

As per Konivings suggestions, +3 tons from max stock (doubled) armour. Lolcust now has the same cap as the Jenner D.