572 replies to this topic

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Sjorpha, on 14 October 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

Agree that clan lasers need reduced range, but why change the basic range mechanic to do it? It would be much simpler to just reduce their optimal range by IDK maybe 20% or so. It's important that they stay longer range than IS though, since there has to be some distinction to ER technology. As others have said it's a bit unclear how to interpret the exact effects.

Mhm, mhm *nods* just leave small lasers out of it.

[Livewyr]

Changing the max range allows them to keep more of the lore, instead of just making Clan lasers and IS lasers the same thing...

It gives them a flavor. I fully support this maneuver.

[grayson marik]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

I'm sorry but I am seeing so many tantrum posts.

"Why won't you follow lore!?"... uh because we can't achieve game balance. "Well do 10 v 12 then!"... well we've already told you we can't do asymmetrical teams in the pub queue so... "Why don't you just delete BattleTech and MechWarrior logo and just call it something else!"... I um... why would we do that? It's still very much a Battletech game isn't it, I mean we've given you a star map based off the lore, we've given you iconic mechs of the Battletech series including some of the unseen... we're trying. I just sort of feel like changing the weapon stats doesn't invalidate the game as a Battletech title. "But it does! it does though! it's just big stompy robots now!"

Nah, the thing is: They try yet another number crunching run and an illogic ghost damage system, after they already did quirks, ghost heat, double heat sinks with 1.4 value, Gauss rifle with a load up phase and so on and so forth.

And by doing so, they leave lore and useful mechanics aside, that would work much much better.

- like a true BV system, to balance the mechs for fair drops. because tonnage is BS as a drop limiting tool.
- like a real heat scale with effects on weapon function, ammo explosions, mobility of mech, pilot effects ...
- like a small cone of fire, when firing on unlocked targets - that would be much more intuitive that this ghost damage stuff.

by now MWO has so many arbitrary BS hidden rules...

It is simply sad to see them leaving perfectly reasonable tools Battletech and Mechwarrior titles used for decades aside and then come out with such ( sorry ) UTTER BS.

[Coralld]

So much rage by people not understanding that the nerf to Clan laser range is only to the 2x fall off, is quite amusing... And irritating at the same time.

If I remember correctly PGI did the same thing with ballistics and the doom sayers were saying the same thing here, only to be proven wrong, and the global nerf was to the 2x fall off or MAX RANGE and not the total range.

For all that is good in the world, understand that there are two sets of ranges, Optimal and Max (AKA fall off) and the changes only touches the Max and Optimal stays the same.

Why in the world is this so hard for some people to understand?!

[Kin3ticX]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

I'm sorry but I am seeing so many tantrum posts.

"Why won't you follow lore!?"... uh because we can't achieve game balance. "Well do 10 v 12 then!"... well we've already told you we can't do asymmetrical teams in the pub queue so... "Why don't you just delete BattleTech and MechWarrior logo and just call it something else!"... I um... why would we do that? It's still very much a Battletech game isn't it, I mean we've given you a star map based off the lore, we've given you iconic mechs of the Battletech series including some of the unseen... we're trying. I just sort of feel like changing the weapon stats doesn't invalidate the game as a Battletech title. "But it does! it does though! it's just big stompy robots now!"

The MWO community has actually had the opposite effect on me. I will probably forever take anyone less serious that argues "because lore" from now on. The lore backstory is great and all but the TT as inspiration for mwo balance has little value. The fact some people think a line by line TRO/ruleset translation is a panacea magic fix to me is a big joke.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 14 October 2015 - 06:53 AM.

[Shredhead]

grayson marik, on 14 October 2015 - 06:41 AM, said:

Nah, the thing is: They try yet another number crunching run and an illogic ghost damage system, after they already did quirks, ghost heat, double heat sinks with 1.4 value, Gauss rifle with a load up phase and so on and so forth.

And by doing so, they leave lore and useful mechanics aside, that would work much much better.

- like a true BV system, to balance the mechs for fair drops. because tonnage is BS as a drop limiting tool.
- like a real heat scale with effects on weapon function, ammo explosions, mobility of mech, pilot effects ...
- like a small cone of fire, when firing on unlocked targets - that would be much more intuitive that this ghost damage stuff.

by now MWO has so many arbitrary BS hidden rules...

It is simply sad to see them leaving perfectly reasonable tools Battletech and Mechwarrior titles used for decades aside and then come out with such ( sorry ) UTTER BS.

Except none of the things you listed were ever used in a single Mechwarrior game. And go away with that ammo explosion BS, this game would become laser and Gauss only otherwise.

[Grayson Sortek]

Brut4ce, on 13 October 2015 - 09:15 PM, said:

I honestly have to say; "thank god there's another thing coming around the corner to satisfy my battletech thirst...". Before however, someone comes along and replies that "this is not constructive critisism", i will preemptively state, that, look where creative critisism and ideas from players that actually play the game and spent countless hours, or even days, putting them down in here all those years, got us. But lets trust someone that does not have a practical understanding, fiddle with the numbers...

The current state of balance in the game, while far from perfect, has been pretty decent, and apart from a few "overquirked" examples, has brought more diversity in the field. Now, all this latest "rebalance" is gonna do, is just create a new "meta" state and thats it.

How about, stop fiddling with numbers, that pretty much invalidate ALL your previous development, quite probably creating "new holes to plug", and instead, invest that time, effort and energy into introducing meaningful, quality content into the game. Except if this is pretty much all the content we are going to be receiving.

Thanks for reading.

^ I'm pretty sure I'm going to get the $275 jacket version because I want to support a team with ambitions.

There are TONS of threads of players giving "constructive" feedback, and tons of different useful ideas that are never even responded to. Seriously, check out Grayson Marik's post on BV. No response from PGI, not even after he e-mailed them.

I have a large selection of IS and Clan bots (I can't call them 'mechs anymore, I just won't do it), so I am unaffected by these changes... I'll just use those bots that are better suited for the new meta. I remember when my lurm boats were meta, when my JM6-FB was best suited for meta... The meta will always be changing because it drives sales to NOT have a perfectly balanced game all the time.

Finally I think you hit upon the biggest point: They will never create actual new content when they can just focus, and have us focus, on stuff like this. Think about it, this thread exploded with everyone worried about the stats for their CS/CoD matches, but there are tons of abandoned threads about real content.

P.S. Thank God there will be a new BT title, and thankfully I'll be so distracted by Fallout4 that I won't care about what happens in this game anymore. Another reason to not buy anymore from PGI.

Bloodweaver, on 13 October 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

Clan DHS are already less efficient than Inner Sphere DHS. PGI's great idea? Make them less efficient still! And make the already-more-efficient Inner Sphere DHS even more more-efficient!

And this Clan laser range nerf... eesh. When did beam duration, heat output, and cycle time stop being valid methods of balancing laser weapons?

The Clan ERLL is going to soon 1) be out-ranged by the Inner Sphere ERLL, while 2) producing more heat, which 3) gets dissipated more slowly due to inferior DHS, and 4) still has a 1.5-second beam duration making each individual "tick" of damage that much less effective.




Honestly, the technological differences between Clan and Inner Sphere are already in a pretty good place. There's a lot of Inner Sphere players who complain about Clan weapons being lighter and more damaging. There's also a lot of Clan players complaining about Inner Sphere weapons being overquirked, easier to make builds for, and being a lot easier to do efficient damage with. But that indicates balance is good. Balance doesn't mean every opposing side is satisfied - it means each side is equally unhappy that they're not on top.

And finally... artifically reduced laser damage for shooting at targets beyond optimum range without being locked on to them? Are you guys serious? How much coke did your balancing team have to snort to come up with such an insanely convoluted concept that doesn't even make sense? Just tie weapon convergence to target locks!!!! Boom, info warfare always matters now! IT'S SO SIMPLE!

This has already been suggested by the community multiple times for years with absolutely no response/feedback from PGI. Don't expect a simple solution.

It is in their best interest to continually change the meta to drive bot sales. It also distracts us from the bigger issues of a serious lack of content.

drunkblackstar, on 14 October 2015 - 01:53 AM, said:

Personally I don't care at all. All those changes are meaningless.

Ok, there will be a new meta: maybe not a laser vomit, but gauss ppc again, maybe not a stormcrow but some trebuchet or whatever. So whats the point? To change A for B? To make more "fog of war"? Does it really bothers someone?

All those changes are flat, its only a surface.

And this game still HAS NO STORY, NO BACKGROUND FOR FIGHTING, NO GOALS, CW IS DESERT etc. And the worst of all - it won't change ever.

Exactly, the meta has changed so many times that it would be ridiculous, and costly/time consuming, to try to keep up with it.

Again, while we are all distracted about statistics and the numbers running under the hood, we fail to realize (as a community) that there still is no significant content or focus/drive.

Like I said with the first post I responded to: Thank God there are more alternatives popping up with HBS and BT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting side note: Did you guys know that PGI bought the IP to MW for both PC and Console? They've done NOTHING for consoles, except to apparently block anyone else's attempt to create something for those platforms. Your underdog heroes everyone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their main reason for not creating a true MW5: lack of publishers and legal issues. Well with the release of the unseen I can't buy the legal issues argument anymore, and after seeing behind the scenes clips it doesn't look like they are starving... Not to mention avenues like KS. So why no MW5?

So now we are at the point where we are losing our minds over weapon statistics and "the meta", but we are content with the same game modes, maps, etc. We have no story to speak of, no background for why we are fighting, no apparent direction, and no serious interaction with the developers except for a select few from the community. Why are we not supporting whoever put the tutorial together and encouraging them to do more stuff like that? Does anyone care?

It's good that I've given up and I've decided to just enjoy the show. Have fun spending hours fighting with the devs and with each other over numbers and minor tweaks to the game play people, I'll be here with my popcorn.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Kmieciu, on 14 October 2015 - 03:06 AM, said:

According to my math it's 118,8 meters without lock (165 with lock). cSPL 6 damage 3 heat

How abut IS SPL? with or without a lock, that's 110 meters 4 damage 2 heat.

Clans still win.

His math was right if PGIs word is taken literally. In any case I have been saying "please buff IS small lasers!" for a long time, it needs to be done, and it isn't fair how crappy they are right now outside of specialized SPL boats. They need a range and damage increase. what doesn't need to happen is a nerf to clan small lasers.

Livewyr, on 14 October 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

Changing the max range allows them to keep more of the lore, instead of just making Clan lasers and IS lasers the same thing...

It gives them a flavor. I fully support this maneuver.

Yeah it's great in concept but they've been too heavy handed with the size of the reduction here.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Coralld, on 14 October 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

So much rage by people not understanding that the nerf to Clan laser range is only to the 2x fall off, is quite amusing... And irritating at the same time.

If I remember correctly PGI did the same thing with ballistics and the doom sayers were saying the same thing here, only to be proven wrong, and the global nerf was to the 2x fall off or MAX RANGE and not the total range.

For all that is good in the world, understand that there are two sets of ranges, Optimal and Max (AKA fall off) and the changes only touches the Max and Optimal stays the same.

Why in the world is this so hard for some people to understand?!

BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE THEIR WORD LITERALLY IT'S OVERKILL REGARDLESS OF IF OPTIMAL RANGE IS UNTOUCHED.

Max range is not the same as falloff damage. Max range is the max range. an cERSL has a max range of 400m, at 60% that is a max range of 240m with an optimal range of 200m. That is unacceptable. I really hope they MEANT falloff damage, but I have no faith in that.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 14 October 2015 - 07:07 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

flynia, on 14 October 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

The 40% range nerf for Clan Lasers seems a little drastic as many other people have mentioned.

Some other ideas:-

- Why not just increase the range of IS Lasers by 20% or so?
- Decrease the range of Clan ER Large Lasers by 20% initially and then re-balance in increments as needed.
- Decrease the range of Clan ER Medium Lasers by 10% or so and then re-balance in increments as needed.
- Decrease the range of Clan Small Lasers by 10% or so and then re-balance in increments as needed.
- Allow the full ranges to be restored with a 6 mill module.

Just an idea...

Make that change and I agree. Small lasers are not, and never have been, OP, the IS versions just need a buff.

[Almond Brown]

Oh how naive so many are. If anyone actually thinks that Rolling Dice and getting random hits on enemy Mechs will be BETTER than actually "Piloting" the Mechs, then a sad reality will soon fall upon them.

BT is a Turn-based tactical 'Mech combat game set in the classic 3025 era of the BattleTech Universe, just like at the Kitchen tables of old.

Will it be FUN and exciting? Sure! But, it ain't never gonna replace the thrill and rush one gets from actually Piloting the Mechs themselves.

I look forward to the BT Forums opening and seeing how long it takes for the TryHards to start up the Whines, QQ and Tears.

Edited by Almond Brown, 14 October 2015 - 07:19 AM.

[Shredhead]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 07:03 AM, said:

BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE THEIR WORD LITERALLY IT'S OVERKILL REGARDLESS OF IF OPTIMAL RANGE IS UNTOUCHED.

Max range is not the same as falloff damage. Max range is the max range. an cERSL has a max range of 400m, at 60% that is a max range of 240m with an optimal range of 200m. That is unacceptable. I really hope they MEANT falloff damage, but I have no faith in that.

You're really bad at maths, aren't you? That would be 200 optimum, 320 maximum. Go back to school maybe?

[latinisator]

Shredhead, on 14 October 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

Except none of the things you listed were ever used in a single Mechwarrior game. And go away with that ammo explosion BS, this game would become laser and Gauss only otherwise.

I think MW3 had a try of a heat penalty system, if mind serves. HUD distortions (but without any further impact) iirc. Even ammo explosions.
Well, it even had sort of knock down, which I miss here since its removal due to abuse / hitreg / warping issues.

[Shredhead]

latinisator, on 14 October 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

I think MW3 had a try of a heat penalty system, if mind serves. HUD distortions (but without any further impact) iirc. Even ammo explosions.
Well, it even had sort of knock down, which I miss here since its removal due to abuse / hitreg / warping issues.

Well, the weapon impact knockdown would be a very frustrating stun lock. I would like mobility restrictions and hud distortion at high heat, I'd absolutely love that, and I wish they'd reintroduce a knockdown system, maybe something that lets you fall to your knees while you keep the ability to fire your weapons.
And no, there were no ammo explosions on overheat in MW3, the mech simply went up in a nuclear explosion

[LorDGuilhotinA]

im very excited to test this new try on the balance of the game, and i see that this a good way to effectively balance the game...
some people saying that many clan technology is being nerfed down so they are becoming the same as IS tech, no way, damage wise maybe, but they are lighter, take less space, same as CHS, heat value are closer to IS HS, but they take less space this is a huge advantage
clan laser reduced range seems good, they are not anymore far superior in range, but still, they are far superior in space and weight
Damage reduction if theres no target lock seems to me an awesome way to bring balance without the need to quirk as it is now, and also makes the use of targeting computers/comand console play a bigger role....

for me the changes going to be tested now are very good, surely they have been discussed over and over by the developers, and are a good way to balance the game, to nerf the current meta, and to make the game more enjoyable in the long term.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Shredhead, on 14 October 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

You're really bad at maths, aren't you? That would be 200 optimum, 320 maximum. Go back to school maybe?

Rude much. I guess if you are going to be, I so must I. Let me school you.

Max range IS NOT dropoff range; dropoff range is dropoff range. Let us look at what they have said, and what it literally means.

• Maximum Ranges for all Clan Lasers have been reduced by 40%.

Hm, let's see. The Maximum range for the Clan Extended Range Small Laser, is currently 400 meters. If you reduce that to 60% that is 240 meters. You can do the math with me if you like, 400 * 0.6 = 240. Now they didn't say they were touching optimal range, I can read, but if you take PGI literally, at their word, then that means you will get an optimal range of 200 meters and a steep dropoff to 240 meters.

Now if what they meant to say is "the dropoff range is getting reduced to 60%" then what you come out with is 320 meters. Let's do the math again shall we. 200 + (200 * 0.6) = 320. Yes this is the number you came out with, but if PGI means what they say then that calculation is not correct. There is nothing wrong with my math, feel free to read through it as many times as you like.

*snark off*

[rolly]

Depending on how this test goes we may need to rename the "ER" in clan tech. It won't be Extended Range at the rate things are going.

[Livewyr]

Jack, if you look at the ingame weapon stats within the client

IS ML has 270 Optimal Range (TT Range). 540 Maximum Range
cERML has 405 Optimal Range. 910 Maximum Range.

They are changing the Maximum Range, not the Optimal.

[Mister Blastman]

These are very interesting changes. Many of them sound good. Thanks for listening!

Now I have one BIG question...

The 40% range reduction... What does that value apply to? I know you mentioned "maximum" range, but, for the sake of clarity, I would like some confirmation...

The range of a cER Medium Laser is 405 and the max range is 810...

Does this mean that it will now be 405/486 ...

Or... 243/486...

Or... 405/648?

I'm assuming it is the third. And if that is the case, I think it needs to go further and reduce the standard range, too so it is something like...

324/648

See what I did there?

Standard range is reduced by 20%, maximum range is reduced by 40%. Math is fun! Realistically speaking the ratio is maintained. But you see the problem... fractions and ratios can be used to manipulate things in all sorts of obtuse ways that can be misconstrued or convoluted. An easier way to factor this would be...

Range = (Max range * .60)/ 2

So it is always 1/2 max range. I feel the standard range needs to be reduced, too, to help achieve some parity if that's what we're trying to accomplish.


Oh, and one last thing worth some thought--halve the heat capacity and double the heat dissipation rate... for science™!

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Livewyr, on 14 October 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

Jack, if you look at the ingame weapon stats within the client

IS ML has 270 Optimal Range (TT Range). 540 Maximum Range
cERML has 405 Optimal Range. 910 Maximum Range.

They are changing the Maximum Range, not the Optimal.

I know O.o I have said that I understand this multiple times. I don't think I have implied that optimal range is getting decreased; I'm also using clan small lasers as my example, not medium lasers.