46 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

I'm seeing a lot of threads, all saying the same thing: That because Clan LRMs weigh so little, that there's tons of them out there making the public experience hell. Now, I am a huge supporter of LRMs as people will know, and I don't want to see them nerfed into worthlessness, but I've long held the the weapons should be reliative to their size & weight. An IS LRM/20 weighs enough that I think it could even justify a buff, for example.

But the thing is, like other Clan weapons or high-punch guns, you've got a perfectly good tool that would literally take under an hour to implement right at your diposal: Rate of Fire.

I've said before how PPCs with a long recycle could be restored to effective sniper weapons without becoming overpowered, but really, this is about the Clans this time. You've been hitting the Clans EVERYWHERE - beam durations, range, damage, and nobody likes it. Even the people who want the Clans nerfed want them to still be Clans. And again, here we are at the solution: Rate of FIre.

Take the Clan LRM problem. It's half the weight of a normal LRM, with minimum range advantages. Why not consider simply doubling it's ROF? That would not impact it's ability to break AMS (cluster fire) and would instantly put them on par, per ton, with the DPS of IS LRMs. Given they weigh half as much, this seems like a more than fair trade-off that would leave them viable.

The same goes for your big punch guns. Clan ER Mediums too effective? What if they took longer to recharge, and were allowed to keep their damage, range, etc. that they were famed for?

What if Clan Pulse only fire 3 slow pulses but take twice as long to come back as the several-pulse IS Pulse Lasers?

You've got a tool here to bring the Clans in line, make them feel different as a faction (Big range, big punch, but possibly harder to pilot because you'd need to make every shot count), and not nerf every single OTHER aspect of them into the ground.

It's OK to go above a 4 second ROF PGI. Players that would find it boring to wait double that (or even more) for a weapon recycle can simply not take those weapons. Players not skilled enough to use guns that need to be aimed carefully can swap to other alternatives, like light ACs.

TL/DR: ROF needs a complete relook with drastic changes. This would take about thirty minutes to implement, and once happy with where it's at, obvious test time. The public test server would be ideal for this step.

Again, I could literally make these changes, personally, in about 15 minutes. Right now. This is not a time consuming fix and in no way requires engineering support. I would like to ask PGI to at least try this major change to the game on the PTS, and get our feedback. You do not even need to fully test the PTS build, so all I'm asking for here is maybe a half hour of work to give it a shot. I'd even be happy to edit the files and send them to you, if you would simply it to the PTS for a couple days.

I do hope you consider this. The "4 second everything" rule has been a problem for MW:O from the beginning.

[Wintersdark]

Leaving Clan vs. IS balance aside, and specific changes as well...

I totally support this. I really hate how homogenized RoF is in MWO these days. I like having weapons with different RoF's, as it makes mech building more interesting and helps different weapons feel more distinct. Having Clan weapons with very different RoF's (not always worse) than their IS counterparts (for example, slower LRM's, faster AC's as the clan AC's are garbage in comparison) helps make Clan weapons more distinct.

Flavor!

[Asmudius Heng]

Upvoting again - though i think PGI are not really concerned with weapons balance right now but more on chassis balance with the quirks which i think should be a priority.

However if that is successful i think weapons balance and RoF should be considered again 100%

Right now the anxiety is not knowing the roadmap for balance change because ... well there is no roadmap really its PGI reacting ad hoc - but at least they are responding faster and with more force and impact than before so i remain hopeful that post CW/Quirks this can be put on the table ALONGSIDE the massive changes that the info warfare pillar need.

Though i think weapons balance would change based on changes to IW too so hmmm

[Ultimax]

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

Take the Clan LRM problem. It's half the weight of a normal LRM, with minimum range advantages. Why not consider simply doubling it's ROF? That would not impact it's ability to break AMS (cluster fire) and would instantly put them on par, per ton, with the DPS of IS LRMs. Given they weigh half as much, this seems like a more than fair trade-off that would leave them viable.

Because at (EDIT) half RoF they would literally be worthless.

They already have longer firing times, and take longer to fire than IS LRMs - so the RoF listed on smurfy's is misleading. (Just like the RoF of a laser, needs to include the burn time).


How about players equip AMS, because it chews right through them? This is the key weakness of Clan LRMs, and nearly 5 months later people still aren't equipping AMS regularly.



At some point people need to put on their big boy pants, and either learn how cover works, or equip AMS.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 15 October 2014 - 06:18 AM.

[Agelmar]

So many people manufacturer balance problems to come up with fixes that aren't needed.

Stop and think how really long recharges and slow rate of fire will impact player behavior. The game. Will suffer.

[Mcgral18]

Agelmar, on 14 October 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

So many people manufacturer balance problems to come up with fixes that aren't needed.

Stop and think how really long recharges and slow rate of fire will impact player behavior. The game. Will suffer.

At the same rate, long range weapons with long cooldowns could no longer be worthless weapons.

Dangerous, but less advantageous up close, rather than gimped at all ranges.

[Asmudius Heng]

Before people read into this things that do not exist i will state again.

RoF is just one modifier in the balance equation. Should something get a longer RoF it might receive some other compensating benefits that still fit it within its role.

Its just an equations of numbers and how they relate to other weapons and how they translate into the real time environment.

The standardization of 4 seconds etc just means they have one less balance level to pull and play around with.

[Victor Morson]

Ultimatum X, on 14 October 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

Because at double RoF they would literally be worthless.

At double ROF they could see other perks to make them worthwhile. Literally be worthless = the same DPS from IS LRMs, pretty much. Yes they fire out in streamers but that ultimately doesn't impact their recycle anywhere near enough, similar to what happens when you pump IS LRMs through a small port.

All weapons should be realitive to their size and tonnage and there's a huge disparity between those two, so other things need to be looked at. And no more crap like nerfing the IS Streak/2 to "normalize" it's refire with Clan Streak weapons. The only ROF change they've made drastically in ages, and it was nerfing the damn Streak/2.

Agelmar, on 14 October 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

Stop and think how really long recharges and slow rate of fire will impact player behavior. The game. Will suffer.

Making people consider taking slow hard hitting guns or fast lightly hitting ones instead of just going "Big punch that fires at the same speed as everything else, more or less?" The horror. The suffering.

Asmudius Heng, on 14 October 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

The standardization of 4 seconds etc just means they have one less balance level to pull and play around with.

Yep!

If they had nerf'ed LRM ROF in the beginning to cut back on the hated spam they could have buffed them in many other ways that may have made them a useful weapon at all levels of play. And if PPCs had been nerf'ed from firing nearly as fast as SRMs, maybe it wouldn't have had to be run down into the dirt.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 October 2014 - 06:08 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'm up for a change.

Rate of Fire is a good a place as any to start at this point, that is if Damage per projectile cannot be changed or even adjust ammo counts also.

[Ultimax]

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

At double ROF they could see other perks to make them worthwhile. Literally be worthless = the same DPS from IS LRMs, pretty much.

What are you talking about?

If you cut their RoF in half, they do half the listed DPS they do now.

AMS works exceptionally well against them.


This is a nerf to just remove them from play.

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

Making people consider taking slow hard hitting guns or fast lightly hitting ones instead of just going "Big punch that fires at the same speed as everything else, more or less?" The horror. The suffering.

No, it's just that some of us understand that lighter weapons all have much better damage per ton, and nerfing bigger weapons on top of that would be silly.

Even if you make an AC 20 round do 40 points of damage on an 8s recycle time - you can't stand there for EIGHT SECONDS while your targets ream you with "lighter" weapons like massed SRMs and MLAS.


You will lose.


This is why this concept is overall a bad idea.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Im pretty sure he is suggesting undoing many of the nerfs to sniping weapons in exchange for longer recycle times. So no more slow PPCs and possibly the removal of the Gauss charge, but instead they have longer recycle times (I'd assume more on par with MW4).

[FupDup]

I can understand RoF nerfss on PPCs (in exchange for faster projectile speed), Goose Waffles (in exchange for charge-up reduction/removal), and maybe even AC/20s (although since it's a brawling weapon, I don't think it's necessary), but other than that not really.

Edited by FupDup, 14 October 2014 - 06:26 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

ya take the clan lrms They suck and ams shoots them down like crazy. . Only thing op about clans is the timber. Remove the timbers and you see IS killing them like crazy.

[Victor Morson]

Ultimatum X, on 14 October 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

No, it's just that some of us understand that lighter weapons all have much better damage per ton, and nerfing bigger weapons on top of that would be silly.

Even if you make an AC 20 round do 40 points of damage on an 8s recycle time - you can't stand there for EIGHT SECONDS while your targets ream you with "lighter" weapons like massed SRMs and MLAS.

You will lose.

This is why this concept is overall a bad idea.

First off, I wouldn't suggest raising the AC/20 to 8 seconds because of it's size and weight and close range role. I never said that, at all. I think an AC/10 should fire far faster than a 20, mind you, but not doubled.

But the bigger point: Why would you stand there and let the team pelt you with smaller weapons? You wouldn't. You'd either want to fire the AC/20, get as much damage as possible, and weave out of the crowd while it recycles - or you'd consider taking your own secondary, fast-firing weapons to stay in the fight.

It's almost as if making every weapon fire at different rates, gives more reasons to use different weapons!

FupDup, on 14 October 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

I can understand RoF nerfss on PPCs (in exchange for faster projectile speed), Goose Waffles (in exchange for charge-up reduction/removal), and maybe even AC/20s (although since it's a brawling weapon, I don't think it's necessary), but other than that not really.

In terms of just IS to IS balance, not everything would need it. I'd actually say to speed up IS Streaks & pulse lasers and slow down the ROF on Gauss, PPC (in exhcnage for a rebuff), etc.

In terms of Clan vs IS it gets more interesting. I think a lot of people would love to have ER Mediums that were like their pre-nerf versions, even if it meant a +3 second firing recycle. This goes double for the ER Large.

Really, theory crafting is hard to prove one way or another, which is why I'm suggesting we try this on the PTS. Get feedback. If people hate it, all is well - less than an hour lost setting it up.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 October 2014 - 07:02 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

Doubling the RoF of cLRM's is way overkill. It's not just about balance of DPS/ton to IS ones. Most Clan weapons aren't balanced using that comparison. You have to consider what that does to cLRM's as a weapon choice for Clan mechs. You are halving their DPS. That drastically changes their relative value and effectiveness as a Clan weapon choice.

What other perks are you giving? What other numbers are you changing?

A complete relook with drastic changes to RoF is not simple. Just changing those numbers is; great you made drastic RoF changes, that was easy! It only took you 15-30 minutes to make a mess of things. Now start fixing everything that puts out of whack and re-balancing by adding other perks/buffs, etc. Not so simple now.

You can make -slight- changes to a weapon here or there if that particular weapon is deemed out of balance.

If cLRM's are actually considered a problem and out of balance -both- compared to IS LRM's and to other clan weapons? Then you could try something like .25 / .5 / .75 / 1 added to their RoF. (5->20) As stated they are already slightly slower + slightly longer launch times added to the cycle. Probably ranging from .5 -> 1 second total difference currently.


TL;DR - Choosing RoF as a way to change a 'problem' weapon? Great. Sweeping, drastic RoF changes? Fine to propose it, but it's not anything near simple anymore at that point.

[Victor Morson]

Spades Kincaid, on 14 October 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

Doubling the RoF of cLRM's is way overkill. It's not just about balance of DPS/ton to IS ones. Most Clan weapons aren't balanced using that comparison. You have to consider what that does to cLRM's as a weapon choice for Clan mechs. You are halving their DPS. That drastically changes their relative value and effectiveness as a Clan weapon choice.

Translations: I love my CLRMs don't take away my cLRMs. I'm not saying an outright doubling may even be the best answer, just a place to start. Perhaps, merely firing 75% slower instead of 100% slower would be more than enough. This is why you need to test these things.

Spades Kincaid, on 14 October 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

What other perks are you giving? What other numbers are you changing?

Some guns don't need replacement perks. Others do. There's zero reason a Gauss Rifle should fire as fast as an SRM from a gameplay stand point. None.

Weapons like the PPC need a buff back into mid-long range weapons. Badly. However they shouldn't be able to keep pace with medium lasers. Weapons like the AC/2 need to be sped up, not slowed down, and their damage restored.

Spades Kincaid, on 14 October 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

A complete relook with drastic changes to RoF is not simple. Just changing those numbers is; great you made drastic RoF changes, that was easy! It only took you 15-30 minutes to make a mess of things. Now start fixing everything that puts out of whack and re-balancing by adding other perks/buffs, etc. Not so simple now.

This should have taken place before the perks/buffs, but in the end, it's another facet of the same effort to fix the game. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Spades Kincaid, on 14 October 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

You can make -slight- changes to a weapon here or there if that particular weapon is deemed out of balance.

The problem is the whole game is out of balance. The re-launch on Steam and impending CW needs to see DRASTIC changes. The balance we have now is basically the result of PGI's balance head basically not doing his job for about a full year, and then trying to fix the game while playing mad libs. We have a lot of ground to repair, and that means yanking people out of their comfort zone, sorry to say.

Spades Kincaid, on 14 October 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

If cLRM's are actually considered a problem and out of balance -both- compared to IS LRM's and to other clan weapons? Then you could try something like .25 / .5 / .75 / 1 added to their RoF. (5->20) As stated they are already slightly slower + slightly longer launch times added to the cycle. Probably ranging from .5 -> 1 second total difference currently.

It was an estimate to start. I'm not opposed to scaling it back. If adding 2 seconds to their launchers fixes the problem dramatically, the problem is fixed.
Frankly I'd rather buff missile damage, travel speed, arc, etc. and slow the ROF on all launchers way down. I'd rather have something that hits hard on skill shots than is just click & hold spam across the board.

Spades Kincaid, on 14 October 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

TL;DR - Choosing RoF as a way to change a 'problem' weapon? Great. Sweeping, drastic RoF changes? Fine to propose it, but it's not anything near simple anymore at that point.

Never said it was simple, or not just one tool in the toolbox. ROF is a good place to START making changes. Once you've decided that a PPC can only fire once every 9 seconds, instead of every 4 seconds, you can balance the weapon entirely differently.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I think I've posted something like the following in one of your threads before:

I've long been a proponent of a total rate-of-fire pass in MWO. I'd like to see most weapons get from one to two seconds of extra recharge/reload time, with certain key weapons (those with specific roles to fill that lend themselves to it) getting rather more, while others (standard SRMs, pulse lasers, etc.) staying pretty much where they are now (a comparative buff if everything else has recharge/reload times increased).

If SSRMs took 2 seconds more to reload compared to standard SRMs, then large SSRM packs would be far less of a problem than people feared them to be. If PPCs took 6s to recharge, then you could let them be potent long-range weapons, and even mid-range performers, since they'd finally be inferior to close-range competitors. For that matter, you could give the standard LL a bit of love, and let it cycle faster than the ERLL, which in turn would cycle faster than the PPC, which in turn would cycle faster than the Gauss.

The point is, RoF lends itself to emphasizing weapon roles. Faster rates of fire are more useful close in, where engagement are far more likely to be sustained over several seconds. Long range weapons, when used at range, don't really suffer if their RoF goes down, since they're almost always used by popping in and out of cover to take your shots when the weapons are ready; bumping RoF for such weapons down significantly compared to shorter ranged options helps those short ranged weapons to compete as engagement ranges close to where they can become useful at all.

Of course, there are exceptions. The light AC types, 2s and 5s, would really suffer if their RoF were reduced significantly, despite being the long-range AC variants. They'd then occupy a special niche, that of low-damage, high RoF, long range weapons.

[Ultimax]

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

First off, I wouldn't suggest raising the AC/20 to 8 seconds because of it's size and weight and close range role. I never said that, at all. I think an AC/10 should fire far faster than a 20, mind you, but not doubled.

Every smaller AC fires faster than the next larger sized AC. This already works like that way.

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

But the bigger point: Why would you stand there and let the team pelt you with smaller weapons? You wouldn't. You'd either want to fire the AC/20, get as much damage as possible, and weave out of the crowd while it recycles

Are we in fantasy land?

How do Assault mechs "weave out of the crowd"?

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

- or you'd consider taking your own secondary, fast-firing weapons to stay in the fight.

You aren't thinking any of this through. Just as the PPC nerfs saw nearly every clan build just move over to lasers, players will move into the most optimal boats that can mount the largest number of small weapons and saw through people.

Do you make the AC 20 do 40 points of damage? Then what? People complain about Dual 20 Jagers still.

How does an AC 80 double tap from a King Crab sound, is that balanced on an 8s recycle?

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

It's almost as if making every weapon fire at different rates, gives more reasons to use different weapons!

It's almost as you just make stuff up to support your position!

People take different weapons right now. The best DDC brawler is still an AC 20, with SRM6s and Medium Lasers.

The most powerful Dire Wolf builds typically have Ballistics and multiple types of lasers, large and small. Just how many different weapon systems do you think people need to take on their builds?

In fact people took mixed load outs during the height of the poptart meta!

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

In terms of just IS to IS balance, not everything would need it. I'd actually say to speed up IS Streaks & pulse lasers and slow down the ROF on Gauss, PPC (in exhcnage for a rebuff), etc.

The only buff worth getting your pants pulled down and completely wrecked the instant you get into close range for would be to double the damage of those weapons. (This is what happens now for snipers vs. dedicated Bralwer builds but this would be 2x worse)

Do we really want dual gauss to be a 60 pinpoint to a single component?



Gauss has some of the worst DPS in the entire game on ton for ton basis - it has some of the lowest DPS of all ballistic weapons.

You would actually make this worse?

The only way to maintain it's DPS after doubling it's RoF would be to double it's single shot output. How does that help the game at all?

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

In terms of Clan vs IS it gets more interesting.

And by interesting you mean "once you get face rushed, with your slow RoF, it's game over".


And, you're not making any sense anyhow. The CERMLAS is one of the lightest weapons in the game - so why are we now cutting it's rate of fire in half?

Or do only Victor Morson's approved list of weapons get buffed in this system?


This sounds very similar to the arbitrary hard sized point systems, where crapmechs get all the good weapons to force people to play them.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 14 October 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

Victor Morson, on 14 October 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

Translations: I love my CLRMs don't take away my cLRMs. I'm not saying an outright doubling may even be the best answer, just a place to start. Perhaps, merely firing 75% slower instead of 100% slower would be more than enough. This is why you need to test these things.

Nice of you to try to speak for me, but no. I've made very little use of cLRM's. Outright doubling is a god-awful place to start - for any weapon. Did Paul 'The Nerfinator' take over your account or something? Merely 75%...... *sigh*

Quote

Some guns don't need replacement perks. Others do. There's zero reason a Gauss Rifle should fire as fast as an SRM from a gameplay stand point. None.

Weapons like the PPC need a buff back into mid-long range weapons. Badly. However they shouldn't be able to keep pace with medium lasers. Weapons like the AC/2 need to be sped up, not slowed down, and their damage restored.

From a gameplay standpoint, there's zero reason it can't either. Since RoF is just one of many factors to it's use and effectiveness. It's fine to have the opinion that they should have different RoF and be rebalanced in other ways. But it's not a de-facto necessity.

All of those are fine opinions to hold. Trading a slight buff to projectile speed again for the ERPPC's coupled to a slightly longer RoF for example. But that's one change to one weapon.

AC2's need heat relief more than any speed or damage change.

Quote

This should have taken place before the perks/buffs, but in the end, it's another facet of the same effort to fix the game. They aren't mutually exclusive.

I was talking about the perks/buffs you said you'd be giving to compensate for RoF nerfs to some weapons. In other words, it's not a simple process.

Quote

The problem is the whole game is out of balance. The re-launch on Steam and impending CW needs to see DRASTIC changes. The balance we have now is basically the result of PGI's balance head basically not doing his job for about a full year, and then trying to fix the game while playing mad libs. We have a lot of ground to repair, and that means yanking people out of their comfort zone, sorry to say.

It was an estimate to start. I'm not opposed to scaling it back. If adding 2 seconds to their launchers fixes the problem dramatically, the problem is fixed.
Frankly I'd rather buff missile damage, travel speed, arc, etc. and slow the ROF on all launchers way down. I'd rather have something that hits hard on skill shots than is just click & hold spam across the board.

Never said it was simple, or not just one tool in the toolbox. ROF is a good place to START making changes. Once you've decided that a PPC can only fire once every 9 seconds, instead of every 4 seconds, you can balance the weapon entirely differently.

Will just address all of this at once. Yes, you kinda did. You said you could make changes in 15-30 minutes for testing. All you could do in 15-30 minutes is make a complete mess. Actual sweeping, drastic changes to RoF means tons of other changes to the balance you say is already so bad.

Every weapon you change the RoF on changes:

It's relative balance to other weapons of it's type.
It's relative balance to all other weapons of it's side (IS/Clan)
It's relative balance to similar weapons on the other side.

Much as you might mock what's been done so far, what you are proposing is a project of changes and testing, more changes, retesting. It is NOT some "Hey, I can do this in 30 minutes for you to test." That's completely out of touch with reality. Anything drastic you did in that little time is doomed to be a muddled mess and not worth testing.

Why I said -slight- changes to specific a weapon (or two), sure. If you meant -just- cLRM changes, okay. But small for goodness sake. You should know better than going wild with the nerfbat. You test, see what that does. Good, move on. Bad, try again.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of it. I'd love for weapons to have a bit more distinction in feel via RoF. What I'm saying is acknowledge it for the undertaking it would be.

Which is exactly why is has pretty much zero chance of happening. They have too much else to work on without attempting a nearly complete rework of weapon balance, and all the time and testing that would require, at this point.

You'd be better served picking out a few specific weapons and making detailed suggestions for exactly how they might be redone with a different RoF. That might actually stand a small chance of happening.

Edited by Spades Kincaid, 14 October 2014 - 08:19 PM.

[Naduk]

While i think rof should most certainly be used to balance weapons, especially cLRM as something really needs to happen here

I don't think restoring ppc speed and lowering its rof will be good in any way
All we will see is a massive return to poptarts
A longer reload time will sync perfectly with the longer times between jump jet useage and heat cool down
All of which will be happening behind perfect cover
Thus returning us right back to square 1 only now its slightly longer between poptart attacks
But that helps nobody at all when half or more of the enemy team is fighting that way as the increase in time is negated by Volley's per player

That era of game play was terrible and iv no wish to go back to it