572 replies to this topic

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mister Blastman, on 14 October 2015 - 07:34 AM, said:

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™!

Sounds great, just leave small lasers out of it.

[InsaneRotta]

Wow. I really get the feeling that many warriors are reading the original PTS post until they reach a point like "40 % reduction", and start screaming and rolling on the floor like kids.

This phase is a TEST. TEST IT before you break down and start crying. It's not being implemented AS IS and RIGHT AWAY. Jeez!

also, if it's MAXIMUM range reduction 40 %, why do people immeadiately assume it effects optimal range aswell? Just like the "not target locking reduces laser damage at 60 % MAXIMUM range" You still would do full damage at optimal range without lock, no?

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Almond Brown, on 14 October 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

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.

You're not a mech pilot.

The robots aren't real.

You point with a mouse.

[Coralld]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 07:36 AM, said:

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.

Then you are confusing the hell out of me. Particularly in the quote where I have bolded the text.

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.

Also its 40% and not 60%, where did you read 60%? Was that a typo?

Edited by Coralld, 14 October 2015 - 07:46 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

InsaneRotta, on 14 October 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

Wow. I really get the feeling that many warriors are reading the original PTS post until they reach a point like "40 % reduction", and start screaming and rolling on the floor like kids.

This phase is a TEST. TEST IT before you break down and start crying. It's not being implemented AS IS and RIGHT AWAY. Jeez!

also, if it's MAXIMUM range reduction 40 %, why do people immeadiately assume it effects optimal range aswell? Just like the "not target locking reduces laser damage at 60 % MAXIMUM range" You still would do full damage at optimal range without lock, no?

I don't assume it reduces the optimal range *facedesk*.

And there comes a point where it's easy to tell the changes are broken before there's even a test. if small laser max range is getting reduced to 240m I don't need to test to say it's a bad change, if it's getting reduced to 320m and only the dropoff range is getting reduced, then I will need to do some testing.

[Omlash]

Tudjátok mi ez az egész? EZ EGY LÓÓÓSZAAR!!!

[Mister Blastman]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

Sounds great, just leave small lasers out of it.

^^ I concur. Small lasers should be left alone.

[Coralld]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

I don't assume it reduces the optimal range *facedesk*.

And there comes a point where it's easy to tell the changes are broken before there's even a test. if small laser max range is getting reduced to 240m I don't need to test to say it's a bad change, if it's getting reduced to 320m and only the dropoff range is getting reduced, then I will need to do some testing.

I get your frustration and I believe we are simply missing each other on terminology.

Deep breaths everyone.

Ok, we both believe that Optimal range is not being touched and what PGI is actually is adjusting is the Max range/Fall-off. Got it. Awesome, we are on the same page.
Now your also throwing in Small lasors. Ok, I will admit that I missed that. But that still only reduces the range to around 310m ish. as its 40%.

Edited by Coralld, 14 October 2015 - 09:19 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Coralld, on 14 October 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

Then you are confusing the hell out of me. Particularly in the quote where I have bolded the text.


Also its 40% and not 60%, where did you read 60%? Was that a typo?

Okay, thank you. I understand where the confusion is stemming from now.

What I mean by "Max range is not the same as falloff damage. Max range is the max range," is that Max range is not the 200m of extra range past the optimal range. The 200m past the optimal range is the dropoff range. Max range is the total 400 meter maximum range. If the Max range is getting reduced to 60% then that 400m becomes 240m.

Now I assume that in either case the optimal range will stay the same, so even if the max range is referring to the full 400 meters getting reduced to 240m, the optimal range will stay fixed at 200m. In other words, my literal interpretation of what PGI is saying is that 200m will stay the optimal range and 240m will become the max range. Again I am discussing clan small lasers; it seems some people are getting confused and thinking I am talking about mediums.

I am hoping PGI is meaning to say that the extra 200 meters past the optimal range, the drop-off range, is getting a cut, which will leave the ERSmalls at 320m max range, but I do not have faith that that is the case.

"reduced TO 60%" and "reduced BY 40%" mean the same thing; if I said "reduced BY 60%" then that was a typo.

[Rasc4l]

Looks so much better than the first iteration!

I'm so happy PGI realized that for "Infotech" to matter, it actually has to be in the game.

[Fubbit]

Interesting stuff.

I like the ECM changes in theory.
The sensor/targeting data stuff I can't quite wrap my head around. ( Hello PTS )

Clan/IS balance
Looks like an interesting start with lasers.
ACs and Missiles are closer to equivalent i think given the IS FLD advantage (And lighter/smaller clan equivalents).
Clan PPC seems way better than IS options.

Without resorting to quirks, the weight/space difference of the two technologies is going to continue to create balance problems though.

The biggest culprit is clearly the XL engine difference. Making IS XLs have two side critical slots goes a LONG way to getting the sides balanced on paper.
Allowing clans to adjust their engine ratings would be a reasonable accommodation.

I don't see obsoleting STD engines any more problematic than obsolete single heat sinks, but both single heat sinks and STD engines could be given benefits that might make them worthwhile in some situations.

After changing IS XLs, making apple to apple comparisons of weapon systems is a lot easier.

Carry on, and I'll see you on the PTS later. =)

[Too Much Love]

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.

All PGI is going to do is throwing us a bone of meta change every 1/2 year to keep you interested, that's all

They don't play this game, don't like it and don't understand it. They make blind almost accidental choices of "balancing" every time and present them as some revelation to the community, which begins to discuss pros and cons, while it really empty and meaningless every time.

It could be cheap and easy to fill this gaming process with new quality, but at least Paul and co need to understand the game - the feature they generally lack.

Basically, we have the situation when Tiers 3 and 4 run the game. Literally - all the developers are those leveles.

[QuulDrah]

The distinction I would like to stress here:

Most of the given changes that are being tested with this are balance tests...
They may work, or they may not work - they may favor one faction, or not - they may turn out to be the Darth Vader of changes, they may bring balance to the force... We will see.

But the non-responsive target recticle?
That is a usability change! It changes the amount of feedback the player gets, it directly changes user experience.

That is a big difference. And that is the reason so many people are speaking out against it.

Tweak the balance in whatever direction? Fine...
Degrade the usability of the HUD? ... ... ... ... ...

[Lostdragon]

Lots of interesting changes, I think a lot of these will be good. I am concerned about not seeing hits register on mechs that aren't targetted, that is a pretty significant change I don't really see justification for, but let's see how it works out.

[InsaneRotta]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 14 October 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

I don't assume it reduces the optimal range *facedesk*.

And there comes a point where it's easy to tell the changes are broken before there's even a test. if small laser max range is getting reduced to 240m I don't need to test to say it's a bad change, if it's getting reduced to 320m and only the dropoff range is getting reduced, then I will need to do some testing.

I was not pointing at you or anyone in particular. I DID read some comments in here that assumed the 40% nerf would be on optimal range too.

[Voivode]

These all seem like positive changes. Hopefully I can get a chance to test this out soon.

[Grayson Sortek]

drunkblackstar, on 14 October 2015 - 08:03 AM, said:

All PGI is going to do is throwing us a bone of meta change every 1/2 year to keep you interested, that's all

They don't play this game, don't like it and don't understand it. They make blind almost accidental choices of "balancing" every time and present them as some revelation to the community, which begins to discuss pros and cons, while it really empty and meaningless every time.

It could be cheap and easy to fill this gaming process with new quality, but at least Paul and co need to understand the game - the feature they generally lack.

Basically, we have the situation when Tiers 3 and 4 run the game. Literally - all the developers are those leveles.

Ironically this change to keep people interested is upsetting more people and driving some away. I was all excited to see actual new content coming out sometime, not an endless series of balance changes.

Looks like I'll be dusting off some of my old bots that stopped "being meta" a while ago since I won't get murdered in them anymore. Hey, what do I care? I didn't bust my ass to get to Tier 1. So this doesn't have as big of an impact on me as it does someone like you. I'm guessing that in order to stay in Tier 1 you are going to have to completely adjust your load outs and tactics... Meaning you'll be spending c-bills and possibly some RL $ to keep up. That really sucks man.

[Desintegrator]

Wow - cut the Laser range of all Clan Lasers by 40% !?

That will hurt all those 8 Lasors Ebons and 9 Lasors Stormcrows.

Maybe time to think about an new build when this happens...

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Desintegrator, on 14 October 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

Wow - cut the Laser range of all Clan Lasers by 40% !?

That will hurt all those 8 Lasors Ebons and 9 Lasors Stormcrows.

Maybe time to think about an new build when this happens...

Hurt's Nova's more :c

[Too Much Love]

Grayson Sortek, on 14 October 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:

Ironically this change to keep people interested is upsetting more people and driving some away. I was all excited to see actual new content coming out sometime, not an endless series of balance changes.

Looks like I'll be dusting off some of my old bots that stopped "being meta" a while ago since I won't get murdered in them anymore. Hey, what do I care? I didn't bust my ass to get to Tier 1. So this doesn't have as big of an impact on me as it does someone like you. I'm guessing that in order to stay in Tier 1 you are going to have to completely adjust your load outs and tactics... Meaning you'll be spending c-bills and possibly some RL $ to keep up. That really sucks man.

There is room for all levels in the game. If you are a player - the main thing is to have fun.

But if you are a developer - you should be pro.

I don't care if my friends dont understand engeneering, but I want my house to be built by engineer with good diploma and experience.