154 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

IS needs to have a counter to Clan lasers. We need IS ER Small and Mediums. And we need X-Pulse lasers. Or if that for some reason cant happen then Clan lasers need nerfed or IS lasers need buffed.

Nerfing clan lasers is the only logical course of action.

The reality is IS ER variants of weapons still suck pretty bad compared to clan weapons. It wont fix the problem.

For example: instead of having the CERML do 7 damage for 6 heat with 405m range just tone it down to like 6 damage for 5 heat with 360m range. Thats a reasonable nerf, its still way better than the ISML, and it would do a lot to balance out those laser vomit alphas.

Applying a small damage/range nerf to all clan lasers would definitely be a positive direction for the game. And in response the IS quirks could be toned down a little because they wouldnt have to overcompensate as much.

Quote

I get what your saying, but as I pointed out in the video. I think it is important to fix some of the foundations of the issues we see with balance (skill tree values being tuned down is also coming on PTS soon).

Except none of the changes on the PTR fix the foundation.

The problem lies in how damage gets distributed, or rather the lack of how it gets distributed. All the damage hitting the same location on mechs has ALWAYS been the #1 problem with weapon balance.

What PGI should be focusing on for their rebalance is making weapons distribute damage more evenly across hit locations. Either by making weapons spread out damage more with various mechanics like duration, burst damage, splash, etc... Or if more extreme measures are required, perhaps implement a system where a certain percentage of the damage done to the center torso/sidetorsos gets redirected outward towards undestroyed components (so like if your center torso gets hit with a full alpha maybe 25% of that damage goes to an undestroyed side torso instead)

Whats on the PTR now is a malformed abortion with paul as its mother. It removes the only thing that makes mechs feel different (weapon quirks). It fails to address any real balance problems of the game. And it adds a bunch of stupid crap no one really cares about (random sensor range quirks).

Edited by Khobai, 14 September 2015 - 03:40 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

MoonUnitBeta, on 14 September 2015 - 09:48 AM, said:

Pretty sure no refund, and they're just going to change the skill.
Otherwise they'll have to refund you the 21,500xp for mastering the mech (if it is) because you won't have all the skills in the elite portion, and refunding you the 3000xp for the pinpoint skill will lose your x2 basic skill multiplier. I have 32(or more?) mastered mechs. I don't want to go through each one and remaster them .

Why are you hoping for a refund?

Because I believe they have done such a thing in the past.

[Steve Pryde]

Khobai, on 14 September 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

Nerfing clan lasers is the only logical course of action.

The reality is IS ER variants of weapons still suck pretty bad compared to clan weapons. It wont fix the problem.

For example: instead of having the CERML do 7 damage for 6 heat with 405m range just tone it down to like 6 damage for 5 heat with 360m range. Thats a reasonable nerf, its still way better than the ISML, and it would do a lot to balance out those laser vomit alphas.

+++

And at the same time buff the CERLL in therms of reducing burning time. It's one of the reasons why nobody use them because of that u can pick up 4 ERML for the same tonnage. CMPL should be untouched because of the weight is balance enough.

[Khobai]

Quote

And at the same time buff the CERLL in therms of reducing burning time. It's one of the reasons why nobody use them because of that u can pick up 4 ERML for the same tonnage. CMPL should be untouched because of the weight is balance enough.

I agree it needs a shorter burn duration. However the CERLL also needs its range reduced.

The biggest problem with clan weapons is their vastly superior range. That range advantage needs to be reeled in so IS has a chance.

[XX Sulla XX]

Steve Pryde, on 14 September 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

+++

And at the same time buff the CERLL in therms of reducing burning time. It's one of the reasons why nobody use them because of that u can pick up 4 ERML for the same tonnage. CMPL should be untouched because of the weight is balance enough.

Problem is you do not want ERLLs of either side being to good. If they are really good people boat them and then play a very long poke game. And that game is very very very boring.

[SolarCleric]

Russ basically said in the town hall: He hopes to have an Orion be able to stand up to a Timberwolf by the time rebalancing finishes. Can't we all just wait and see how they plan on doing that before launching nukes?

I like the game the way it is now, and I think it's trending in the right direction. Hell I'd be pretty happy in CW too if they would just change the ratio to 12 IS versus 10 Clan.

I know the 1%ers that live and die by the current metas in the top tier are going to take all this pretty seriously, but for an average MWO player and a above average BT fan...I'm content and look forward to what changes come. If they can get us a Marauder and a Warhammer....anything is possible.

[JohnnyWayne]

Yeah guys, just lets nerf the last good clan weapon to the ground. There is only lasers and gauss in the game because everything else SUCKS.

[Lugh]

Khobai, on 14 September 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

I agree it needs a shorter burn duration. However the CERLL also needs its range reduced.

The biggest problem with clan weapons is their vastly superior range. That range advantage needs to be reeled in so IS has a chance.

Or you could learn how to approach positions without being in the open for extended periods of time?!?!

[Bishop Steiner]

MrJeffers, on 14 September 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

Coming out this weekend was a bad idea given the double XP event. Since there isn't any player incentives to run on the PTS it was actually counter productive to open it up Friday since you are then forcing people to give up potential live server gains.

If they would have had it out early in the week it would have been better, or if they open it up this weekend and provide to live server benefits (e.g. grab bag rewards for matches, Double C-Bills weekend on the PTS that are credited to your live account, etc) to incentivize people to populate the PTS it will have much better population and feedback.

Agreed, was poorly communicated, and really badly timed. THOSE are legit complaints. Most of the rest are people not informing themselves before posting kneejerk reactions on the forums, and then being too proud, stubborn or agenda oriented to be willing to back down.

Aren't they supposed to be bringing it back up today? Personally, I say they should leave it open all week, then close it on weekends. If they need to post a Patch/Update midweek, just say so and keep it rolling.

And I have been telling Russ (fruitlessly, I will admit) that they need to incentivize PTS play. And giving us a bunch of MC, etc for PTS use is not an incentive. We need incentives that last on our real accounts.

Reno Blade, on 14 September 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

Here is what I think about balancing steps (in addition to the sensor changes):

- make sensor range and detection strength dependent on weight (as Phil mentioned) so bigger mechs can also be detected easier

- remove/reduce the bonus of agility given by the engine and make the differences of variants count more that way.
> increases the effect/quirks of variants that push agility over mechs that have bigger engines (like the Timber).

- give Endo/Ferro some plus/minus effects (e.g. reduced/increased internal structure/armor)
> e.g. 20% more armor if you use Ferro

- increase internal structure (at least of the torso sections) of all mechs
> reduces the risk of very fast kills by coring mechs and makes disarming more usefull

optional: make endo/ferro on IS mechs become un-changeable
> further differentiate variants and inter-chassis differences

Then we can think about roles like the LRM "support" and scouting versus direct fire.
E.g. if LRMs would be 2-3x as long to reload, but had 2x the damage, the scouting + LRMs would be much more teamwork involved AND you had to be sure to have enough backup weapons, as a LRM boat would be very inefficient and also boring (imagine a 8-10 sec cooldown on all your weapons).

I can get on board with most of these ideas. Surprisingly I even like the Structure one, because it does fit the lore, that they are tough, relatively easy to put back into combat. This would sort of fit that.

XX Sulla XX, on 14 September 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:

Over all I agree with doing something with weapons of course. But the IS has counters if they just put them in the game. IS ER Small. IS ER Medium. IS X-LPL. If done right this would counter the Clan weapons that most need counters. Other changes I am open to as needed

those counters though are not in timeline, and in most cases are still inferior to the Clan Versions. Don't see REAL counters until Heavy Gauss, RACs, etc.

[Khobai]

Quote

Or you could learn how to approach positions without being in the open for extended periods of time?!?!

Its impossible not to be in the open on certain maps. Boreal vault is a perfect example of a map where clan ranged superiority is dominant. as soon as IS mechs enter the gate they get shot at by clan mechs they cant really retaliate against. Its not uncommon for them to be heavily damaged by the time they finally make it into cover... and then they have to fight mostly fresh clan mechs.

So yeah youre wrong.

Quote

Yeah guys, just lets nerf the last good clan weapon to the ground. There is only lasers and gauss in the game because everything else SUCKS.

Um who said anything about nerfing them into the ground? The nerf I proposed for the CERML still makes it WAY better than the ISML in damage and range.

CERML goes from 7 damage, 6 heat, 405m range to 6 damage, 5 heat, 360m range

Which is still much better than the ISML which is 5 damage, 4 heat, 270m range.

And the ISERML (when it comes out) would be 5 damage, 5 heat, 360m range. So it would still be 1 damage less than the clan version.

clans still have the targeting computer to further increase the range of their lasers as well.

Edited by Khobai, 14 September 2015 - 11:18 AM.

[Mazzyplz]

Quote

Russ basically said in the town hall: He hopes to have an Orion be able to stand up to a Timberwolf by the time rebalancing finishes. Can't we all just wait and see how they plan on doing that before launching nukes?

an orion can already stand up to a timber wolf; you want proof?



check out this match orion player D!ck shipley. - i spec his cockpit after i die. [look at his match score, dmg..]

this match is from 3 months ago under elo (but elo well set in, similar skill levels)


the problem with this game is that people are just PLAIN BAD. so how can they hope to even assess what mech is better than another.
clan mechs are easier to use, but IS mechs have a higher possible performance.

Edited by Mazzyplz, 14 September 2015 - 11:43 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

the problem with this game is that people are just PLAIN BAD.

Thats pretty irrelevant if matchmaker is doing its job.

Although it is a problem that CW has no matchmaker. It really should.

[Mystere]

Bloody, on 13 September 2015 - 11:17 PM, said:

You know, i cannot think of a company who for example makes a car, and decides to test if the lights work by throwing away the wheel... just saying, it is pretty incompetent not to have controls in a test environment and expect the testers to know what they are supposed to be testing without notes etc

That's a terrible analogy.

The company was testing using the old wheels, because they performed consistently in all cars.

Edited by Mystere, 14 September 2015 - 11:23 AM.

[Mazzyplz]

Khobai, on 14 September 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

Thats pretty irrelevant if matchmaker is doing its job.

Although it is a problem that CW has no matchmaker. It really should.

yes of course you are right.

but i do not mean the matchmaker; i mean to review a mech.

i have seen people make claims about mechs that just reflect their own shortcomings; and i see it all the time

[Mystere]

kapusta11, on 14 September 2015 - 01:01 AM, said:

Sean has too much faith in PGI.

I'd rather deal with someome with "too much faith" than someone else who always acts like a screaming toddler every time they see something they do not like, whether real or imagined.

[Davers]

Josef Koba, on 14 September 2015 - 06:27 AM, said:

From a logical, realistic stand point, ballistic velocity differences between mechs never made that much sense to me. My AC20 somehow propels slugs faster in my whatever than in my other whatever? Does it have more propellant in the rounds by virtue of being on one chassis over another? I don't know. Duration for lasers I guess is a smaller pill to swallow; maybe Mech A is just more efficient from an energy perspective. But in any case, I've never had a problem with adjusting to the differences in velocities between mechs in terms of lead time. Some rounds fly significantly faster on some mechs than others, but I've never had a problem adjusting. I guess I didn't even consider this as a thing pilots worried about.

Just imagine the weapons/ammo are from different manufacturers.


I appreciate Sean's video. It seemed to address many of the complaints I have seen (and perhaps written) in the various forum threads. But PGI really should have done a much better job explaining what they were testing, and how the new systems worked. Maybe Sean should replace Tina as Community Manager? Somehow NGNG seems to get videos out frequently, and with interesting guests from PGI and the community.

[Dimento Graven]

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

I get what your saying, but as I pointed out in the video. I think it is important to fix some of the foundations of the issues we see with balance (skill tree values being tuned down is also coming on PTS soon).

So I'd say I don't think introducing new weapons systems is the answer, but if this is done and done correctly, introducing them will be a lot easier (balance wise) in the near future if PGI chooses.

Sean, someone is going to have to go into great detail to explain the extremely wide, and seemingly VERY random nature of the quirks on the test servers.

Taking the Hunchback as a 'middle tier' example of what I'm talking about, here's the non-weapon quirks for all the HBKs:

As you can see all the variants movements are in-line with one another. Piloting a GI is no different than piloting a 4SP.

HOWEVER, when we look at the current quirks on the test server, consistency is malf'd:

The frickin' movement profiles jump wildly from one variant to the other. You go from a mostly buffed 4SP to a severely nerfed GI (standard). It's so significnat it's like going from a medium to an assault.

Then there's other bizarre differences, for example the differences between a GI and a GI Special Edition garners a giant WTF?!?!? And it's the same darn thing when comparing the 4P with the champion 4P (C).

Next something even more odd, the differences between the 4SP and the 4J. There's only ONE more energy hard point on the 4J yet the quirk differences are EXTREME.

How are we to take this balance pass seriously, and respond without extreme ire and vehemence, when even among variants of the same chassis the stats swing so monstrously?

You take the above situations that are occurring for all the IS 'mechs that I've checked, and add to it the fact that the Clans, with a half assed effort can completely game the new quirk system to significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate, all negative quirks off their chassis.

Heck, here's my first half-assed attempt at gaming the quirks on a DW:

As you can see, I eliminated the acceleration nerf, damn near eliminated the deceleration nerf, mitigated, somewhat the turn rate, turn the negative torso turn rates, and target scan nerfs into positive boosts.

Yes goddamnit I know we're NOT YET balancing IS vs Clan yet

BUT, how in the heck are you going to do that when you've broken the foundation so significantly? AND THIS IS BROKEN, I don't care HOW you spin it.

It's ridiculous man!

Edited by Dimento Graven, 14 September 2015 - 01:15 PM.

[stjobe]

Remember, this is the company that deliberately set their game in the Clan invasion era and then didn't have the first idea as to how to balance Clan tech vs IS tech for two years, only to introduce the Clans so OP that they had a 90% win rate against IS.

Only by severely nerfing Clan tech and ridiculously quirking IS chassis did they get anything even close to balance.

So what makes anyone think they'll be able to balance Clan vs IS this time around?

I hope, I really do hope that the InfoWar bits of this rebalance by some miracle gets turned into something interesting, but more likely they'll be used to justify why certain chassis or variants are too frail to fight effectively - i.e. to make them not combat-viable. Which means those chassis variants are relegated to the scrap heap from the get-go.

I dread seeing InfoWar quirks on my Commandos, because the presence of those quirks likely means that they won't be getting any worthwhile quirks; quirks that makes them fight better.

And fighting is what this game is about, in the end. If a 'mech cannot fight effectively, there's really no room for it in a fighting game. You can't win matches by observing the enemy.

[Khobai]

Quote

Only by severely nerfing Clan tech and ridiculously quirking IS chassis did they get anything even close to balance.

yep this.

we liked weapon quirks because they succeeded at making mechs feel different from eachother. What we didnt like was when weapon quirks got overcompensated in order to balance IS vs Clan. The correct way of balancing IS vs Clan was to nerf the clan side of things.

As for the infotech, thats fine to add, but it shouldnt be done at the expense of other positive elements of the game, namely weapon quirks.

[Mycrus]

stjobe, on 14 September 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

Remember, this is the company that deliberately set their game in the Clan invasion era and then didn't have the first idea as to how to balance Clan tech vs IS tech for two years, only to introduce the Clans so OP that they had a 90% win rate against IS.

Only by severely nerfing Clan tech and ridiculously quirking IS chassis did they get anything even close to balance.

So what makes anyone think they'll be able to balance Clan vs IS this time around?

I hope, I really do hope that the InfoWar bits of this rebalance by some miracle gets turned into something interesting, but more likely they'll be used to justify why certain chassis or variants are too frail to fight effectively - i.e. to make them not combat-viable. Which means those chassis variants are relegated to the scrap heap from the get-go.

I dread seeing InfoWar quirks on my Commandos, because the presence of those quirks likely means that they won't be getting any worthwhile quirks; quirks that makes them fight better.

And fighting is what this game is about, in the end. If a 'mech cannot fight effectively, there's really no room for it in a fighting game. You can't win matches by observing the enemy.

Even if they bring it back to clam launch day balance as long as they don't nega-quirk our commandos we will be fine...