1
Now, I want to begin my review by talking about 4-v-4 and some of the effects it has. This is incredibly important, because we need to be aware of what the most dominant factors are in how the PTS plays. Long story short, I think most (but not all) of the fun had to do with the smaller game sizes rather than the new or changed core mechanics.
So, what are the effects of 4-v-4?
First, and most obviously, focus fire is far less potent. When a maximum of only four 'Mechs can be shooting at one target at any given time, it naturally takes a little bit longer to drop a target than it would if eight or so players were doing the same. This means it is less dangerous to cross open ground, it is less punishing if you stumble into the enemy formation, it means individual skills are more important.
4-v-4 also has a profound impact on team composition. In random drops, whoever's got the newly-tanky Atlas has a huge advantage. The enemy has to make a judgement call; can they take out the Atlas or its support faster? The smaller teams also render it more difficult to get synergy going between the lighter 'Mechs with better sensor stats and the larger 'Mechs with the longer-range lasers that rely on locks to do their job. The small games also render long-range support builds harder to do well with in the absence of active team coordination because there are less 'Mechs to screen for them.
So, with that in mind, let's move onto the actual changes in the PTS.
Heat
Spoiler
This one is a fairly straight-forward problem relative to this PTS, so I'm going to just kind of stick to one major issue rather than try to go super deep and bore everybody with the usual "rah rah rah, need radical change to this mechanic" spiel. That issue is heat generation vs. dissipation on Inner Sphere vs. Clan.
I have some thoughts on what to do about it, and also what to do with Single Heat-sinks.
This one is a fairly straight-forward problem relative to this PTS, so I'm going to just kind of stick to one major issue rather than try to go super deep and bore everybody with the usual "rah rah rah, need radical change to this mechanic" spiel. That issue is heat generation vs. dissipation on Inner Sphere vs. Clan.
Spoiler
The problem with the game before the current batch of live quirks was that Inner Sphere weapons were too hot for the amount of damage and range they offered in conjunction with the lower number of heat-sinks they can fit. The Clan weapons look like they run hotter on paper, but because they can fit more heat-sinks they can dissipate much better. An Inner Sphere 'Mech had lower heat capacity, and took longer to cool down to a usable level than a Clan 'Mech with comparable firepower and superior range.
So, I am confused with the changes in the PTS, where Inner Sphere Double Heat-sinks (DHS) add a dissipation of 0.14 and a capacity of 1.5 per unit. Clan DHS offer dissipation of 0.15 and a cap of 1.1 per unit. Live, they are identical at 0.14 and 1.4 dissipation and cap, respectively. First, because these value changes are so small that they have no visible impact, and second because they don't address the problem. Let's look at that former item:
Take a generic 'Mech with a 250-sized engine. It has 10 internal DHS offering a dissipation of 0.2 per unit. Total heat-cap is 50. Now, add in 10 more DHS. On the live server, that results in a total dissipation of 3.4 and a heat-capacity of 64. Gravy. On PTS, though, the Inner Sphere get a dissipation of 3.4 and a heat-capacity of 65 while the Clans get a dissipation of 3.5 and a heat capacity of 61. That's a 2% improvement to capacity for the Inner Sphere. The Clans received a 6% reduction in heat capacity and a 3% improvement to dissipation. These numbers are so small, that you can't see the effects in the game. More noticeable is the loss of heat-generation quirks for the Inner Sphere and the loss of heat efficiency skills across the board. Clan 'Mechs behaved identically for me, even the Mist Lynx (3x C-SPL and 2x SRM2)
More alarming than the low magnitude of change is the fact that it seems to buff one side...and then also buff the other. This, I am sorry to say, seems to be a chronic problem with balance attempts in this game. Take the ER Large Lasers, for example. Before quirks and Clans, the Inner Sphere ER Large was actually in a decent place. When Clans launched, they had an ERLL that was far-and-away superior. Now, one of the balance passes increased its duration...but then it also increased the duration on the Inner Sphere version. That doesn't make sense. That never made sense. It had shorter range and lower damage and was already out-classed by the more powerful and similarly-ranged C-LPL, so hitting both Clan and Inner Sphere ERLL was something of a head-scratcher. I am seeing a similar problem with the heat-sinks.
As mentioned earlier, Inner Sphere weapons generate too much heat for the combination of damage and range they offer and the amount of heat-sinks you can fit. The number of DHS is limited by their increased bulk and the increased bulk and weight of all surrounding equipment. It does not make sense to provide the Clan DHS with any sort of buff while, at the same time, buffing Inner Sphere DHS. That's just universally raising the bar, which is not what we need. We need to raise up one side relative to the other to reach parity. Academically, the Inner Sphere either need weapons that generate less heat than they currently do, or their heat-sinks need to be more effective than they currently are. It's really that simple, because that's the root of the issue.
The problem with the game before the current batch of live quirks was that Inner Sphere weapons were too hot for the amount of damage and range they offered in conjunction with the lower number of heat-sinks they can fit. The Clan weapons look like they run hotter on paper, but because they can fit more heat-sinks they can dissipate much better. An Inner Sphere 'Mech had lower heat capacity, and took longer to cool down to a usable level than a Clan 'Mech with comparable firepower and superior range.
So, I am confused with the changes in the PTS, where Inner Sphere Double Heat-sinks (DHS) add a dissipation of 0.14 and a capacity of 1.5 per unit. Clan DHS offer dissipation of 0.15 and a cap of 1.1 per unit. Live, they are identical at 0.14 and 1.4 dissipation and cap, respectively. First, because these value changes are so small that they have no visible impact, and second because they don't address the problem. Let's look at that former item:
Take a generic 'Mech with a 250-sized engine. It has 10 internal DHS offering a dissipation of 0.2 per unit. Total heat-cap is 50. Now, add in 10 more DHS. On the live server, that results in a total dissipation of 3.4 and a heat-capacity of 64. Gravy. On PTS, though, the Inner Sphere get a dissipation of 3.4 and a heat-capacity of 65 while the Clans get a dissipation of 3.5 and a heat capacity of 61. That's a 2% improvement to capacity for the Inner Sphere. The Clans received a 6% reduction in heat capacity and a 3% improvement to dissipation. These numbers are so small, that you can't see the effects in the game. More noticeable is the loss of heat-generation quirks for the Inner Sphere and the loss of heat efficiency skills across the board. Clan 'Mechs behaved identically for me, even the Mist Lynx (3x C-SPL and 2x SRM2)
More alarming than the low magnitude of change is the fact that it seems to buff one side...and then also buff the other. This, I am sorry to say, seems to be a chronic problem with balance attempts in this game. Take the ER Large Lasers, for example. Before quirks and Clans, the Inner Sphere ER Large was actually in a decent place. When Clans launched, they had an ERLL that was far-and-away superior. Now, one of the balance passes increased its duration...but then it also increased the duration on the Inner Sphere version. That doesn't make sense. That never made sense. It had shorter range and lower damage and was already out-classed by the more powerful and similarly-ranged C-LPL, so hitting both Clan and Inner Sphere ERLL was something of a head-scratcher. I am seeing a similar problem with the heat-sinks.
As mentioned earlier, Inner Sphere weapons generate too much heat for the combination of damage and range they offer and the amount of heat-sinks you can fit. The number of DHS is limited by their increased bulk and the increased bulk and weight of all surrounding equipment. It does not make sense to provide the Clan DHS with any sort of buff while, at the same time, buffing Inner Sphere DHS. That's just universally raising the bar, which is not what we need. We need to raise up one side relative to the other to reach parity. Academically, the Inner Sphere either need weapons that generate less heat than they currently do, or their heat-sinks need to be more effective than they currently are. It's really that simple, because that's the root of the issue.
I have some thoughts on what to do about it, and also what to do with Single Heat-sinks.
Spoiler
This is going to sound strange as it runs counter to what we are familiar with, but what if all heat-sinks offered the same dissipation, and the differentiator was heat-capacity, scaled by the number of slots required? Let's say our dissipation per heat-sink is 0.15 heat/sec, and cap increases by 0.5 per slot occupied. That would give SHS at 0.5, cDHS at 1.0, and DHS at 1.5 capacity per unit. Some 'Mechs are strikers and don't need so much increased cap, but they do need to run both Endo and Ferro to fit equipment, i.e. the Locust. I would happily trade some cap so I can equip Ferro and squeeze in some more dissipation, which I presently cannot do.
Our hypothetical 250-engine 'Mech with 20x heat-sinks now looks like this:
IS with SHS: 3.5 dissipation and 55 cap
IS with DHS: 3.5 dissipation and 65 cap
Clan w/ DHS: 3.5 dissipation and 60 cap
This lets us have SHS that are useful and isDHS that offer benefits for their size. Values can be tweaked, sure, and even the weapons might still need changing to fit it all together, but it's an idea.
Other possibilities could be providing SHS with slightly superior dissipation to DHS but inferior cap, or dramatically superior cap for inferior dissipation. Bottom line is, for something to be useful it needs to have at least one useful niche where it is the superior option.
This is going to sound strange as it runs counter to what we are familiar with, but what if all heat-sinks offered the same dissipation, and the differentiator was heat-capacity, scaled by the number of slots required? Let's say our dissipation per heat-sink is 0.15 heat/sec, and cap increases by 0.5 per slot occupied. That would give SHS at 0.5, cDHS at 1.0, and DHS at 1.5 capacity per unit. Some 'Mechs are strikers and don't need so much increased cap, but they do need to run both Endo and Ferro to fit equipment, i.e. the Locust. I would happily trade some cap so I can equip Ferro and squeeze in some more dissipation, which I presently cannot do.
Our hypothetical 250-engine 'Mech with 20x heat-sinks now looks like this:
IS with SHS: 3.5 dissipation and 55 cap
IS with DHS: 3.5 dissipation and 65 cap
Clan w/ DHS: 3.5 dissipation and 60 cap
This lets us have SHS that are useful and isDHS that offer benefits for their size. Values can be tweaked, sure, and even the weapons might still need changing to fit it all together, but it's an idea.
Other possibilities could be providing SHS with slightly superior dissipation to DHS but inferior cap, or dramatically superior cap for inferior dissipation. Bottom line is, for something to be useful it needs to have at least one useful niche where it is the superior option.
Infotech
Spoiler
This is the big controversial topic. Summary: I really like the variable sensor ranges and lock-on delays. I do not like the laser-focus mechanic. I know the latter has been canned, but I want to explain my feelings because PGI deserves more than just nebulous outbursts of feelings from players at large, myself included.
Spoiler
The variable sensor range and lock-on times are a phenomenal idea. Preventing large 'Mechs from being able to immediately spot targets on sensors from long ranges allows smaller, weaker, and faster 'Mechs to properly flank or spy without mandating ECM. It also helps mitigate the domination of massed Streak SRM fire over fast-moving Lights, as it will take longer to get the dorito and get the lock.
It also felt like the laser-lock mechanic was working. It's hard for me to say, as with 4-v-4 there are not a lot of 'Mechs on the field, and even fewer were playing Scouts. In a 12-v-12 scenario, maybe there would have been more Scouts to light up targets for the big laser boats, I don't know. I do know that, even with the loss of maneuverability quirks and speed, my Locust was not getting laser-blasted from 400+ meters and I could approach a combat zone while remaining in fighting shape once I arrived. It was nice.
That said...the mechanic remains incredibly obtuse and does not ultimately solve the real problem. It's a mechanic that isn't explained in training or really conveyed to the player at all, and one that doesn't make any logical, natural sense. Why does the laser range drop when I don't have a target? Because I can't focus? But I have a little range indicator below my crosshair that instantly tells me what the distance is between me and what I am pointing at is, so how does needing a lock for this make sense? It doesn't. It also unnecessarily harms Lights trying to use any laser besides Small Pulse (and even those get a little bit whacked), and that's not something we really need.
So what's the root problem? The root problem is that we have a set of weapons (lasers) with a minimal learning curve that can be brought in large-enough numbers to deal game-breakingly large amounts of damage to a single point at long range. In game-mechanics technical speak, they have low risk but high reward. There's no good reason not to take lasers. Attempting to give them a drawback is admirable, but there are better ways to do this.
The simplest and easiest solution include increasing their burn time to make ballistics more appealing, increasing the cool-down to provide gaps to advance through, increasing heat to incentivize bringing fewer weapons, shortening the maximum range (and perhaps the optimum in some cases), and lowering heat-caps to stop the firing of unreasonably high energy damage at once.
Ghost heat, for all its detractors, is another method, but, ghost heat has a problem right now were it does not have a consistent damage limit. Some weapons can deal more damage before the penalty kicks in than others, and you can circumvent these limits by combining different weapons with similar-enough characteristics.
The variable sensor range and lock-on times are a phenomenal idea. Preventing large 'Mechs from being able to immediately spot targets on sensors from long ranges allows smaller, weaker, and faster 'Mechs to properly flank or spy without mandating ECM. It also helps mitigate the domination of massed Streak SRM fire over fast-moving Lights, as it will take longer to get the dorito and get the lock.
It also felt like the laser-lock mechanic was working. It's hard for me to say, as with 4-v-4 there are not a lot of 'Mechs on the field, and even fewer were playing Scouts. In a 12-v-12 scenario, maybe there would have been more Scouts to light up targets for the big laser boats, I don't know. I do know that, even with the loss of maneuverability quirks and speed, my Locust was not getting laser-blasted from 400+ meters and I could approach a combat zone while remaining in fighting shape once I arrived. It was nice.
That said...the mechanic remains incredibly obtuse and does not ultimately solve the real problem. It's a mechanic that isn't explained in training or really conveyed to the player at all, and one that doesn't make any logical, natural sense. Why does the laser range drop when I don't have a target? Because I can't focus? But I have a little range indicator below my crosshair that instantly tells me what the distance is between me and what I am pointing at is, so how does needing a lock for this make sense? It doesn't. It also unnecessarily harms Lights trying to use any laser besides Small Pulse (and even those get a little bit whacked), and that's not something we really need.
So what's the root problem? The root problem is that we have a set of weapons (lasers) with a minimal learning curve that can be brought in large-enough numbers to deal game-breakingly large amounts of damage to a single point at long range. In game-mechanics technical speak, they have low risk but high reward. There's no good reason not to take lasers. Attempting to give them a drawback is admirable, but there are better ways to do this.
The simplest and easiest solution include increasing their burn time to make ballistics more appealing, increasing the cool-down to provide gaps to advance through, increasing heat to incentivize bringing fewer weapons, shortening the maximum range (and perhaps the optimum in some cases), and lowering heat-caps to stop the firing of unreasonably high energy damage at once.
Ghost heat, for all its detractors, is another method, but, ghost heat has a problem right now were it does not have a consistent damage limit. Some weapons can deal more damage before the penalty kicks in than others, and you can circumvent these limits by combining different weapons with similar-enough characteristics.
Spoiler
We also have some more radical options. Russ, said something about altering how convergence works being tough. I humbly submit an idea.
Without lock, all weapons fire straight ahead without any convergence. The crosshair sizes (both arm and torso) will increase to reflect this, with the radius of each crosshair representing the weapon the distance from the center-point to the barrel projected to some fixed distance. In real talk, that means you can use the edge of the circle/cross to aim your most off-center weapons at that fixed distance without a lock.
With a lock, your weapons can converge, your aim-point shrinks to its current sizes. Convergence should not be instant, it should take time dependent upon the profile of the 'Mech being targeted.
This allows PGI to keep some of its infotech infrastructure intact without unfairly harming one category of weapons. It also won't hurt Lights so much, because Lights are small and have weapons spaced fairly close together.
We also have some more radical options. Russ, said something about altering how convergence works being tough. I humbly submit an idea.
Without lock, all weapons fire straight ahead without any convergence. The crosshair sizes (both arm and torso) will increase to reflect this, with the radius of each crosshair representing the weapon the distance from the center-point to the barrel projected to some fixed distance. In real talk, that means you can use the edge of the circle/cross to aim your most off-center weapons at that fixed distance without a lock.
With a lock, your weapons can converge, your aim-point shrinks to its current sizes. Convergence should not be instant, it should take time dependent upon the profile of the 'Mech being targeted.
This allows PGI to keep some of its infotech infrastructure intact without unfairly harming one category of weapons. It also won't hurt Lights so much, because Lights are small and have weapons spaced fairly close together.
Skill Tree
Spoiler
I honestly don't see much of a point to changing this. The real problem is that an experienced player gets a 'Mech that is better than an identically built 'Mech of the same chassis piloted by a newer player, and nothing changed in PTS.
On the other hand, the loss of agility is fantastic. A Dire Wolf should not be able to track a Locust with ease, and it can't on PTS.
I honestly don't see much of a point to changing this. The real problem is that an experienced player gets a 'Mech that is better than an identically built 'Mech of the same chassis piloted by a newer player, and nothing changed in PTS.
On the other hand, the loss of agility is fantastic. A Dire Wolf should not be able to track a Locust with ease, and it can't on PTS.
Quirks
Spoiler
This is another sore spot. I think the durability bonuses to the Atlas are fantastic, but the Locust is under-armored now and extra squishy since it lost its agility in both quirks and skills, making it wholly inadequate against other Lights. It also runs really hot with 4x Medium Lasers or 6x Small lasers...which is ridiculous.
I think quirks should still be a facet in MWO, but not on weapons. In only the most extreme cases (i.e. SDR-5V) should we even consider quirking weapons. I will elaborate below.
I think quirks should still be a facet in MWO, but not on weapons. In only the most extreme cases (i.e. SDR-5V) should we even consider quirking weapons. I will elaborate below.
Spoiler
Quirks presently are trying to solve two things: equipment deficiencies and 'Mech deficiencies. You should not ever use quirks to fix equipment deficiencies; for that, you should directly change the equipment. For 'Mech deficiencies, you should directly address those deficiencies instead of trying to indirectly address them by making them really good with certain equipment.
If a 'Mech is considered sub-par, we need to examine why it is sub-par. Let's look at the Battlemaster:
It's tall, it is wide, and it is flat. This makes its side torsos easy to hit, it makes those same side torsos take longer to rotate out of the line of fire, and it takes more absolute rotation to shield the CT. It also has very narrow twist arc and it doesn't twist very fast.
This 'Mech is considered sub-par, then, because it has difficulty spreading incoming damage and therefore is either killed or otherwise neutralized more readily than other 'Mechs, like the Stalker or Timber Wolf. In short, its survivability is lower than it ought to be because it has sub-optimal geometry exacerbated by poor agility traits.
Now, there are two performance factors we can change to fix this: weak and strong. Weak factors are things like torso twist, acceleration, and turning. They are weak because although they help, they rely on pilot ability to be useful. Strong factors are armor and structure. They help regardless of player ability, and are the most direct path to improving survivability with a weak component.
If you improve survivability, the 'Mech becomes more useful on the field. You can technically increase survivability with weapon quirks, but you shouldn't need to when the above options are available and effective.
Quirks presently are trying to solve two things: equipment deficiencies and 'Mech deficiencies. You should not ever use quirks to fix equipment deficiencies; for that, you should directly change the equipment. For 'Mech deficiencies, you should directly address those deficiencies instead of trying to indirectly address them by making them really good with certain equipment.
If a 'Mech is considered sub-par, we need to examine why it is sub-par. Let's look at the Battlemaster:
It's tall, it is wide, and it is flat. This makes its side torsos easy to hit, it makes those same side torsos take longer to rotate out of the line of fire, and it takes more absolute rotation to shield the CT. It also has very narrow twist arc and it doesn't twist very fast.
This 'Mech is considered sub-par, then, because it has difficulty spreading incoming damage and therefore is either killed or otherwise neutralized more readily than other 'Mechs, like the Stalker or Timber Wolf. In short, its survivability is lower than it ought to be because it has sub-optimal geometry exacerbated by poor agility traits.
Now, there are two performance factors we can change to fix this: weak and strong. Weak factors are things like torso twist, acceleration, and turning. They are weak because although they help, they rely on pilot ability to be useful. Strong factors are armor and structure. They help regardless of player ability, and are the most direct path to improving survivability with a weak component.
If you improve survivability, the 'Mech becomes more useful on the field. You can technically increase survivability with weapon quirks, but you shouldn't need to when the above options are available and effective.
Spoiler
Rule of thumb is that a 'Mech with a flat, wide torso needs more and faster torso twist than one with a longer and narrower torso. The disparity between the two types also scales with weight class. The ideal 'Mech shape would essentially be a thin cylinder with guns mounted at cockpit level on arms that can pivot on two axes. Urban 'Mech is pretty close, let down only by its low engine cap.
Rule of thumb is that a 'Mech with a flat, wide torso needs more and faster torso twist than one with a longer and narrower torso. The disparity between the two types also scales with weight class. The ideal 'Mech shape would essentially be a thin cylinder with guns mounted at cockpit level on arms that can pivot on two axes. Urban 'Mech is pretty close, let down only by its low engine cap.
Weapons
Spoiler
There is a lot to say on this subject. I have made threads about it, McGral18 has made threads about it with similar views to mine, but suffice it to say that weapons are not in a good spot.
There is a lot to say on this subject. I have made threads about it, McGral18 has made threads about it with similar views to mine, but suffice it to say that weapons are not in a good spot.
Spoiler
And it's not just the domination of Clans over Inner Sphere, it's also the domination of lasers over ballistics and missiles and how even some ballistics are just outright superior to others. PGI, if you actually care for our suggestions, give us an indication. I've slaved away for hours trying to balance the weapons on paper, but making a new post about it would be a huge labor on its own, easily twice as complex as this feedback thread. If you want to hear my ideas or other peoples' ideas, let us know. I want this game to get better, I want you guys to make money so that this game can stick around, and so many of us are willing to help you out pro-bono.
Throw us a bone!
Throw us a bone!
Spoiler
That said, since the AC/2 was what was changed, I have this to say: it was not enough. Sure, our 'Mechs technically ran colder but the gun is still ineffective. Why? Because it fires too slow. In the time it takes to spit six damage down-range with a pair of AC/2, I will have received 50+ damage to one spot in laser fire from a single opponent. It cannot suppress targets at long range because the gaps in the stream are too large and because even an AC/5 will out-damage it per-shot at 1200 meters, and because the ammo count per ton is too small to continuously fire. The slow rate of fire is even the real reason it runs colder; the JM6-S and BJ-1/DC both lost their ballistic quirks, and the latter generates heat at a lower rate due more to a 60% reduction in rate of fire than a 20% decrease in heat.
The AC/2 on the live BJ-1DC is a good baseline for how it should perform. There, it has a cool-down of 0.45 seconds and generates 0.625 heat per shot. Ergo, I suggest you look into trying 0.65 heat, 0.5s cool-down, and between 100 and 125 rounds per ton to allow it to suppress and to help mitigate ammo waste do to enemies spreading damage.
That said, since the AC/2 was what was changed, I have this to say: it was not enough. Sure, our 'Mechs technically ran colder but the gun is still ineffective. Why? Because it fires too slow. In the time it takes to spit six damage down-range with a pair of AC/2, I will have received 50+ damage to one spot in laser fire from a single opponent. It cannot suppress targets at long range because the gaps in the stream are too large and because even an AC/5 will out-damage it per-shot at 1200 meters, and because the ammo count per ton is too small to continuously fire. The slow rate of fire is even the real reason it runs colder; the JM6-S and BJ-1/DC both lost their ballistic quirks, and the latter generates heat at a lower rate due more to a 60% reduction in rate of fire than a 20% decrease in heat.
The AC/2 on the live BJ-1DC is a good baseline for how it should perform. There, it has a cool-down of 0.45 seconds and generates 0.625 heat per shot. Ergo, I suggest you look into trying 0.65 heat, 0.5s cool-down, and between 100 and 125 rounds per ton to allow it to suppress and to help mitigate ammo waste do to enemies spreading damage.
Spoiler
The SRM velocity increase changed very little about their effectiveness. They are used a lot on PTS, but that's because the Atlas durability quirks and uncoordinated play among strangers combined with small teams and the laser-lock mechanic to make the brawl incredibly powerful.
The SRM velocity increase changed very little about their effectiveness. They are used a lot on PTS, but that's because the Atlas durability quirks and uncoordinated play among strangers combined with small teams and the laser-lock mechanic to make the brawl incredibly powerful.
Click on spoilers to read whatever section interests you most. This is all I have in me to write for now. Cheers, all!
Edited by Yeonne Greene, 08 November 2015 - 12:19 PM.
