172 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

The absolute solution is to effectively make Clams = / = IS in all ways save particle effects. (Not that I'm proposing or am in favor of this to be clear)...

We are talking about trying the provide equity / parity between two entities that for intent and purpose are are not supposed to have equity or parity for the purpose of giving at least the outward impression of "balance".

Which at face value it is destine to fail from so many angles it's not funny...

[Tombstoner]

The core issue with this problem is found in the TT design rules and the way PGi ported them into MWO. The TW and SS sit on tonnage optimums for max speed per tonnage of engine invested, over lay the 50% xl reduction and you got the most armor/speed/fire power optimum in the game. The assaults only advantage is more armor and thats a joke with pin point accuracy. Seriously its 3.5 tones worth of armor between a 75 and a 100 tone mech.

MWO is not designed to handle synergistic interactions between Armor and Speed. Once you over lay turn rates to power-plant size ( PGI design choice - not present in TT) things get worse.... its not surprising at all whats happening.

I think PGI needs to standardize turn rates for all mechs. independent of power-plant size. TT and SC advantage is partially nerfed( an advantage PGI added). Then seriously look into armor coefficients to buff mech durability and over lay a similar coefficient for turn rate.

Edited by Tombstoner, 18 May 2015 - 12:50 PM.

[Mystere]

DaZur, on 18 May 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

The absolute solution is to effectively make Clams = / = IS in all ways save particle effects. (Not that I'm proposing or am in favor of this to be clear)...

We are talking about trying the provide equity / parity between two entities that for intent and purpose are are not supposed to have equity or parity for the purpose of giving at least the outward impression of "balance".

Which at face value it is destine to fail from so many angles it's not funny...

As I said so many times before, seeking 1-on-1 symmetric balance in an IP that is inherently asymmetric is nothing but a fool's errand.

Asymmetrical solutions should have been sought instead:

• stars vs lances
  
• different drop weights
  
• different drop sizes (for CW)
  
• Asymmetric victory conditions

Then remove mixed teams from the public queues.

[Bishop Steiner]

00ohDstruct, on 18 May 2015 - 12:05 PM, said:

Who's driving this thing and where are we going?

The sames Devs who introduced Quirks and tiering based on the SOLE METRIC OF CHASSIS POPULARITY. And then looked to our NGNG friends for advice on how to quirk them.

Joseph Mallan, on 18 May 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Then they are doing fine. I'm not pissed off.

So, you're EVERYONE now, eh Joe?

DaZur, on 18 May 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

The absolute solution is to effectively make Clams = / = IS in all ways save particle effects. (Not that I'm proposing or am in favor of this to be clear)...

We are talking about trying the provide equity / parity between two entities that for intent and purpose are are not supposed to have equity or parity for the purpose of giving at least the outward impression of "balance".

Which at face value it is destine to fail from so many angles it's not funny...

i got another post on that, under the heading: MixTech.

[C E Dwyer]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 May 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

I am much more Fanatical about CBT that AD&D. And I started D&D back in 78! There are a few to many D&D "worlds" to follow.
Greyhawk
Whatever the 2nd Edition world was
Dragonlance
Everron
That space fairing D&D game
Dark Sun World
Ravenloft

Just to name a few. Then there was New Aucken... Which was my brothers D&D world.

space frontiers the baddies were, space slugs

[Bishop Steiner]

Big thing I don't like? If LASERVOMIT is the issue...why give generic energy nerfs? Because PPC Timbers are the Meta? I run a stock TBR-D, i get a 9% heat nerf to my ERPPCs, and 9% heat and cooldown nerf to my OP ERSL.

Not sure the solution, but stealing from Peter to pay Paul always seems like a bad idea, even for balancing a game.

[Star Colonel Silver Surat]

Tombstoner, on 18 May 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

I think PGI needs to standardize turn rates for all mechs. independent of power-plant size. TT and SC advantage is partially nerfed( an advantage PGI added). Then seriously look into armor coefficients to buff mech durability and over lay a similar coefficient for turn rate.

This makes a lot of sense. Bishop's suggestion to remove speed tweak from TBR and SCR is kind of dumb honestly - why should those two mechs be unique in the game in not benefiting from speed tweak? Silly. They pay for their speed agility with oversized engines at the cost of firepower (the TBR has inferior podspace to the Cauldron Born).

I think nerfing their torso turn rate/distance makes more sense, especially on the stormcrow. That's how PGI nerfed the almighty catapults and victors back in the day.

Or, as you suggest, disconnect torso turn rate from engine size or get rid of speed tweak entirely for all mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Star Colonel Silver Surat, on 18 May 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

This makes a lot of sense. Bishop's suggestion to remove speed tweak from TBR and SCR is kind of dumb honestly - why should those two mechs be unique in the game in not benefiting from speed tweak? Silly. They pay for their speed agility with oversized engines at the cost of firepower (the TBR has inferior podspace to the Cauldron Born).

I think nerfing their torso turn rate/distance makes more sense, especially on the stormcrow. That's how PGI nerfed the almighty catapults and victors back in the day.

Or, as you suggest, disconnect torso turn rate from engine size or get rid of speed tweak entirely for all mechs.

actually, it's not my idea, but one of the agility ones that have been forwarded. And since Clan weapons are notably lighter than IS; not really sure it's "paying" for anything by being "overengined", when for good players, that speed is inherently one of the reasons the TBR and SCR are so good.

[SkyHammyr]

I don't have a problem with nerfs. Nerfs happen. And, yeah, I suppose TBR/SCR had it coming.

The problem I'm having with this is:
The severity of the nerfs- these negative numbers start to add up. And, while the cooldown may or may not be a blessing in disguise, the increased face time is pretty frightening.
The narrow mindedness of said nerfs- I get it, you guys don't like Laz0r Puke. But, geez if you don’t want the laz0rs, stop shoving laser pods and laser boats (practically the entirety of R2) in my face!
The lack of alternatives- There aren't a lot of Clam Robots to choose from here. There aren't a lot of quality non-laser builds to choose from, either.
The inconsistency of said nerfs- Look, I was loving TDRs before they come into style, but I'm scratching my head as to how the Thuds managed to dodge the nerf hammer.
And, how this is so CW-Centric- As much as I enjoy CW, it’s only half the game. And to base balance decisions on CW Results alone doesn’t fill me with much confidence.

I'll deal with these nerfs. Hell, I rock the Novas pretty darned well and I rarely play TBRs anyway because of the high Heavy Queue. So, I'll survive. I'm just scratching my head as to the thought process that when into this.

[ztac]

Isn't the heart of the problem with PGI's inability to balance weapons and consider actual aspects of all mechs in hardpoints, speed , hitboxes , total spare tonnage prior to and after such things as endo skeletons and ferrous armour?

DPS and ability to maintain DPS as well as exposure times too all count! Don't PGI even know that longer burn time gives someone more time to either get out the way or torso twist and thus in either respect limit damage? Which in effect lowers potential DPS further not to mention longer cooldowns! Whilst what they did with the stalker pales in comparison to the SCR and TBR ! But this is just the tip of the iceberg!

What thy did to the Clan mechs was far worse than the IS ones in essence! I guess though keeping the many happy is more important than a balanced and fair game!

I suppose that if the Hellbringer becomes the replacement for the above then that will be slammed into next... probably OP ECM posts and the like.

Edited by ztac, 18 May 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 May 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

That's because it wa OVERNERFED Don.

One doesn't have to swing diametrically to either extreme,. in fact, the ideal is to not do so at all.

And Also, in the case of the VTR, the agility didn't even address the actual issue (poptarting), whereas, agility is one of the few things besides stupid level weapon nerfs that can be addressed in the TBR and SCR

I agree with the overall tone of the thread.

I'll just chime in and say that the agility nerfs were probably aimed at doing 2 primary things.

1) Reducing ability to make snapshots - an offensive reduction to the primary meta-loadout of the time.

2) Reducing ability to torso twist away from opponents - a defensive reduction that compromised the ability to shield as well as previously.



The current TBR & SCR nerfs probably aim to do a similar thing without specifically doing it the same way, which was much complained about (nerfing agility of VTR/HGN).


So in this way burn duration and cd nerfs do two primary things:

1) Reducing ability to focus (extended burn) & deal damage (DPS) - an offensive reduction to the primary meta-loadouts right now.

2) Reducing the ability to torso twist away from opponents while continuing to deal damage - a defensive reduction that compromises the ability to shield by forcing more face time or suffering a major loss of damage output.




FWIW I think PGI is going about it the wrong way as well, and I think the numbers and method they have chosen is way too large and heavy handed and needs to be re-thought.


With a full build of penalties on a TBR, your CERMLAS will do 7 damage over 1.4s (more like 1.43 or so).

That means after one full second you only deal about 5 damage, the same as an MLAS, except you pay 50% more heat to do it.


It also blanket nerfs other loadouts that aren't remotely as problematic (as you've noted) such as PPCs, CSPLs, CERSLAS, etc.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 18 May 2015 - 02:33 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 May 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

But they should have hit the Agility and maybe removed the Speed Tweak bonus from the chassis, instead of this.

NO no no just no The problem with this build was the laser vomit not the speed not the agility. I hate it when people ask to nerf things in that way and not nerf the real problem. Going 80 in a timber wolf with the same laser vomit builds before would hardly have made any difference at all. Please stop asking them to nerf the agility on things. It is like the just stupid agility nerfs they had on the Victors for ever. So just please stop

Now going back to what they did do. If you look at all the possible builds with lasers it really just brings them down to something that is more inline with IS fire power. You can still run 6 MPLs just fine. And you can even run 2 LPLs and 3MLs but with a longer burn time. But if you compare that to IS mechs it really does balance out rather well. The more I see how the quirks are going to change things the more I like it.

[Fleeb the Mad]

Ultimatum X, on 18 May 2015 - 02:30 PM, said:

With a full build of penalties on a TBR, your CERMLAS will do 7 damage over 1.4s (more like 1.43 or so).

That means after one full second you only deal about 5 damage, the same as an MLAS, except you pay 50% more heat to do it.

Using incomplete comparisons like that is dangerous and misleading. With those numbers, it looks like the ER ML is the clear loser, until we remember that it still has substantially greater range and more overall utility.

Trading heat for range was always a thing. The Clan ER Small matches the IS med laser for damage and has comparable range for half the weight. The ER med is a poor choice for use on Clan brawlers trading blow for blow inside IS ML range.

I might suggest comparisons to the IS Large and ER medium instead, since they have a similar range profile. Which weapon looks worse there?

[Johny Rocket]

Im sure no one has forgotten that if you don't load out to the quirks there is no negative effect on the weapon you choose, throw in a couple of modules and there are your quirks.
Everyone talks as if you have to load for the quirks. Its an advantage but sometimes not the best for the player/mech combo.

Edited by Tractor Joe, 20 May 2015 - 04:26 PM.

[Ultimax]

Fleeb the Mad, on 18 May 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

Using incomplete comparisons like that is dangerous and misleading. With those numbers, it looks like the ER ML is the clear loser, until we remember that it still has substantially greater range and more overall utility.

Trading heat for range was always a thing. The Clan ER Small matches the IS med laser for damage and has comparable range for half the weight. The ER med is a poor choice for use on Clan brawlers trading blow for blow inside IS ML range.

I might suggest comparisons to the IS Large and ER medium instead, since they have a similar range profile. Which weapon looks worse there?

What's funny is someone telling this to me. Hopefully the irony won't be lost on others who rampantly call me an IS fanboy (which is pretty delusional in and of itself).


Trading heat for range is one thing.

But the ERLLAS doesn't cost 10.5 heat to fire vs. the LLAS being 7, that's what 50% extra heat looks like.


This is beyond trading mere heat for range.

This is also trading damage loss for...nothing.

This is also trading more face time for...nothing.



Game balance needs to be more middle ground solutions and less nerf hammers.


Just like how potarting was completely gutted and no longer a real, viable strategy (outside of like a tiny handful of mechs) - the devs are gutting laser boating but only for 2 specific mechs.

All other mechs capable, will be allowed to continue laser boating.


The nerf also does some idiotic things like penalize CSPLs or CERPPCs. There is a point where a scalpel is required and not a wrecking ball.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 18 May 2015 - 04:01 PM.

[Impyrium]

While I honestly don't have any problem with nerfing the Clan 'Mechs as they have (it was a long time coming IMO), and don't really have any sympathy for those that bought the 'Mechs expecting them to remain over powered, it does seem a little off balance that the IS 'Mechs such as the Stalker and FS9-A haven't been belted into the ground as well. The Stalker, especially, is probably a little too useful over others... same with Firestarters. So hoping that'll get addressed soon.

[Templar Dane]

Ultimatum X, on 18 May 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

All other mechs capable, will be allowed to continue laser boating.

Nova is pretty meh. Ice Ferret can't boat. Mad Dog is squishy and can only take a max of 5. Summoner is crap and can do a max of 4.

I'm telling you, all this is gonna do is make the hellbringer a hell of a lot more common.

Countdown to ecm/hellbringer whine......

[Yokaiko]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 May 2015 - 02:03 PM, said:

Big thing I don't like? If LASERVOMIT is the issue...why give generic energy nerfs? Because PPC Timbers are the Meta? I run a stock TBR-D, i get a 9% heat nerf to my ERPPCs, and 9% heat and cooldown nerf to my OP ERSL.

Not sure the solution, but stealing from Peter to pay Paul always seems like a bad idea, even for balancing a game.

So do you think got a second the inner sphere doesn't laser vomit as bad as clans?

Seriously, my drop deck forever was fs9, thud thud Dragon, more lasers then my clan deck for reference.

[JC Daxion]

I'm just gonna wait and see... IMO the game is far better balanced now than it was 2 years ago.. and i'll bet in another 2 it is much better than it is now. PGI just ran that event and got a ton of data from it. I'd have to bet that these nerfs are directly related to that data..

[vandalhooch]

Kristian Radoulov, on 18 May 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

Ok first I want to address the first problem. The perception that TBR and SCR are OP. By and large this comes about as a result of these mechs being dominant in CW drop decks.

Speaking of fallacies. Let's address yours right here. TBR and SCR dominate usage in solo and group que as well as CW. Competitive teams use them in droves during comp leagues and inter-unit scrimmages. The best players of my own unit (I'm nowhere near that tier) admit that using TBR's in group que makes the game much, much easier.

Does this mean that they are OP? Maybe, maybe not. Let's see what the nerfs do to usage over an extended period of time.

Quote

This is the first fallacy that needs to be addressed. High representation does not equal OP, it simple means that is the best choice clan players have.

Why is this the case? Simple: because the vast majority of clan mechs don't have endo and FF by default while the TBR and SCR do. They come optimized out of the box which makes they a no-brainer when it comes to choosing mechs for competitive play.

The next thing to address is why clan players are going with laser vomit builds in the first place. Once again the answer is also rather simple: our other weapons systems are not attractive alternatives. LRMs are binary in nature (either work or they don't), SRMs require an aggressive playstyle that has many drawbacks and is harder to execute as a group than poke trading. Clan ballistics are less effective than their IS counterparts and when coupled with clan DHS being locked, naturally force clan mechs AWAY from ballistics.

IF PGI unlocked endo/FF/engines/heatsinks on clan mechs, you would see a TON more variety and the perception that the SCR and TBR are OP would rescind. IF PGI updates clan ballistics along with unlocked heat sinks you would see less laser vomit.

That's it for the clan side of things, I will next post about the IS side of things.

Weapon choice could also be related to relative skill level of pilots. Lasers are forgiving. Initial misses can be adjusted to end up doing damage. A missed gauss round is a complete miss. AC's require leading of targets.

The streak-crows are almost as simple as it gets to deal damage. Surviving long term in them against a skillful opponent however is another kettle of fish.

In short, let's try the new adjustments. If they turn out to be to harsh, then they can be partially rolled back. Iterate. Assess. Then adjust. You can't just jump to the conclusion part without actual tests.