1
Targeting Reticle and Hit-Indicator
Spoiler
I don't terribly mind the new hit indicator. However, I think it needs more to be the most effective thing possible.
First, while the physical indicator is good, it needs some change to ensure that it is always visible to the player. When a player is making a wide shot, the hit indicator appears over the torso reticle, not the arm reticle. This leaves a player with no solid indicator of a hit, unless they notice the indicator in their peripheral vision. Either add a second indicator specifically to the arm reticle or attach the hit indicator to the arm reticle instead of the torso reticle.
Second, the color change needs to be returned to it. This provides players a very distinctive aspect when a hit is made, no matter what reticle the player is looking at. However, I agree that neither aspect of the hit reticle should appear unless the mech is actually targeted. The mech's computers don't know they hit something if they didn't have it locked to begin with.
I don't terribly mind the new hit indicator. However, I think it needs more to be the most effective thing possible.
First, while the physical indicator is good, it needs some change to ensure that it is always visible to the player. When a player is making a wide shot, the hit indicator appears over the torso reticle, not the arm reticle. This leaves a player with no solid indicator of a hit, unless they notice the indicator in their peripheral vision. Either add a second indicator specifically to the arm reticle or attach the hit indicator to the arm reticle instead of the torso reticle.
Second, the color change needs to be returned to it. This provides players a very distinctive aspect when a hit is made, no matter what reticle the player is looking at. However, I agree that neither aspect of the hit reticle should appear unless the mech is actually targeted. The mech's computers don't know they hit something if they didn't have it locked to begin with.
Targeting Profiles/TAR attribute
Spoiler
This is frigging awesome. It makes some mechs exceptionally difficult to track and target. I was having a Mist Lynx get full locks and fire LRMs on me before I even got a solid lock in an Adder. It makes worlds of difference in the quality of various mechs for scouting and targeting purposes. This should be expanded upon, greatly, to even include the time before you even get a "Dorito" on your radar.
This is frigging awesome. It makes some mechs exceptionally difficult to track and target. I was having a Mist Lynx get full locks and fire LRMs on me before I even got a solid lock in an Adder. It makes worlds of difference in the quality of various mechs for scouting and targeting purposes. This should be expanded upon, greatly, to even include the time before you even get a "Dorito" on your radar.
Targeting Laser Range Modifiers
Spoiler
Again, as I said the last time this came up, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. However, two ranges need to be added to the HUD for this to work as desired. One range should be the optimal range of the weapon, which we can see shift through various targeting situations. The other range should be the maximum range of the weapon, giving players a fixed number that they always know they can hit a target at. This range issue is going to play havoc on players if some defining and consistent information isn't displayed on the HUD . . . especially with newer players.
I also perfectly understand this affecting laser weapons and not ballistic or missile weapons. While laser weapons are entirely hit-scan based equipment, ballistics and missiles require other aspects to function fully. Whether it's leading shots properly, ballistic drop-off, differing projectile velocities, weapon charge-up, or getting locks, all the other weapon systems already require aspects of IW to be at their best . . . lasers merely require pointing and shooting. This works as a significant balancing factor in adding IW into the laser weapons.
Again, as I said the last time this came up, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. However, two ranges need to be added to the HUD for this to work as desired. One range should be the optimal range of the weapon, which we can see shift through various targeting situations. The other range should be the maximum range of the weapon, giving players a fixed number that they always know they can hit a target at. This range issue is going to play havoc on players if some defining and consistent information isn't displayed on the HUD . . . especially with newer players.
I also perfectly understand this affecting laser weapons and not ballistic or missile weapons. While laser weapons are entirely hit-scan based equipment, ballistics and missiles require other aspects to function fully. Whether it's leading shots properly, ballistic drop-off, differing projectile velocities, weapon charge-up, or getting locks, all the other weapon systems already require aspects of IW to be at their best . . . lasers merely require pointing and shooting. This works as a significant balancing factor in adding IW into the laser weapons.
Weapon Balance Changes
Spoiler
Much was done in the ways of helping balance out weapon systems for the PTS Phase 3. Much of this is good, while there are still a few outliers that should be addressed for weapon balance to be in an optimal spot . . . at least in my opinion:
- Flamers: You knew this was coming if you know anything about me. Please, I'm begging here . . . there's so much great stuff going on . . . please get the flamer reengineering completed for the complete Rebalancing of MWO. These are my personal baby and favorite weapon system of Battletech. Lots of good suggestions exist for getting these in a better place. Some are simple XML changes (such as Mcgral18 shows in his balance recommendation thread).
- AC/2s: The change was pretty respectable. The crit seeking quality is a nice feature to make it more valuable in the damage department, but not make its DPS exceed that of the AC/5. However, I think the heat still needs to be tuned down a little bit to be in a perfect spot . . . not much, maybe down to .6 or so from the current .8 heat. That should allow it to be the extremely heat efficient weapon it's supposed to be, even in larger quantities.
- LRM Changes: Overall these are most welcome, indeed. The cooldown increases help even out the fact that ECM lost the absurd magic lock blocking capability. The spread also helps out both standard and Artemis launchers significantly. Larger launchers actually have most missiles hit, now, with little issue. On the other hand, LRM/5 spam MUST be addressed for this to be truly effective, as the longer cool downs on larger launchers just beg for spamming the quicker, smaller launchers in mass quantities even more. My recommendation . . . normalize the LRM/5 cool-down to match other launchers and increase the spread on them slightly, so they're not the most concentrated launchers.
- SRM/SSRM Changes: They're very welcome changes, indeed. However, these changes mitigate the effectiveness in lights using AMS to defend themselves from these dangerous anti-light weapons (namely the SSRMs). Possibly consider lowering the health of SRM/SSRM missiles so that AMS can still take them out at the same rate they did before. Otherwise, a blanket change to AMS will also have an affect on the effectiveness of LRMs, as well. More in the next point.
- Potential AMS Tuning Needed: Larger LRM launchers are more concentrated with slower cycle times, which is an improvement. However, LRM/5 spam is still faster, and can easily overwhelm AMS systems. At the same token, the velocity increase to SRM/SSRM systems also mitigates AMS overall effectiveness. Consider increasing the damage of AMS systems to help mitigate LRM/5 spam and retain current effectiveness against SRM/SSRM systems. However, this also affects the larger LRM launchers, so the above recommendations should also be considered in balancing missiles and AMS, so that AMS is not easily overwhelmed and/or has its effectiveness reduced too much.
- Gauss Rifles: The nerf was needed. In close quarters they're basically hit-scan weapons that can insta-kill most lights when used in pairs (especially if also paired with a PPC or Lasers of nearly any sort). This slows down their killing potential significantly and helps ensure the Gauss Rifle stays in its proper role as a sniping weapon . . . not a high-PPFLD brawling cannon. That should be the AC/20's job, period.
- Laser Changes: Personally, I still think one maximum range should be set for each laser type (standard, pulse, and ER). Then, you adjust the optimal ranges, damage, heat, etc. to ensure that there is significant flavor difference between factions. Clan should be higher heat, higher optimal range (thus a quick, sharp drop-off), longer burn time, and higher damage. IS should be lower heat, lower optimal range (thus a longer, gradual drop-off), shorter burn time, and lower damage. This should be consistent across all laser types, while of course taking the functionality of each type into consideration for specific numerical adjustments. The Inner Sphere will eventually flesh out the rest of its ER series, so it should be taken into account now. Also, the IS base laser series should be a more heat efficient (for a laser) average-performing choice to give it something special. I think the current changes are moving in that direction, PGI just needs to make the final push for it.
Much was done in the ways of helping balance out weapon systems for the PTS Phase 3. Much of this is good, while there are still a few outliers that should be addressed for weapon balance to be in an optimal spot . . . at least in my opinion:
- Flamers: You knew this was coming if you know anything about me. Please, I'm begging here . . . there's so much great stuff going on . . . please get the flamer reengineering completed for the complete Rebalancing of MWO. These are my personal baby and favorite weapon system of Battletech. Lots of good suggestions exist for getting these in a better place. Some are simple XML changes (such as Mcgral18 shows in his balance recommendation thread).
- AC/2s: The change was pretty respectable. The crit seeking quality is a nice feature to make it more valuable in the damage department, but not make its DPS exceed that of the AC/5. However, I think the heat still needs to be tuned down a little bit to be in a perfect spot . . . not much, maybe down to .6 or so from the current .8 heat. That should allow it to be the extremely heat efficient weapon it's supposed to be, even in larger quantities.
- LRM Changes: Overall these are most welcome, indeed. The cooldown increases help even out the fact that ECM lost the absurd magic lock blocking capability. The spread also helps out both standard and Artemis launchers significantly. Larger launchers actually have most missiles hit, now, with little issue. On the other hand, LRM/5 spam MUST be addressed for this to be truly effective, as the longer cool downs on larger launchers just beg for spamming the quicker, smaller launchers in mass quantities even more. My recommendation . . . normalize the LRM/5 cool-down to match other launchers and increase the spread on them slightly, so they're not the most concentrated launchers.
- SRM/SSRM Changes: They're very welcome changes, indeed. However, these changes mitigate the effectiveness in lights using AMS to defend themselves from these dangerous anti-light weapons (namely the SSRMs). Possibly consider lowering the health of SRM/SSRM missiles so that AMS can still take them out at the same rate they did before. Otherwise, a blanket change to AMS will also have an affect on the effectiveness of LRMs, as well. More in the next point.
- Potential AMS Tuning Needed: Larger LRM launchers are more concentrated with slower cycle times, which is an improvement. However, LRM/5 spam is still faster, and can easily overwhelm AMS systems. At the same token, the velocity increase to SRM/SSRM systems also mitigates AMS overall effectiveness. Consider increasing the damage of AMS systems to help mitigate LRM/5 spam and retain current effectiveness against SRM/SSRM systems. However, this also affects the larger LRM launchers, so the above recommendations should also be considered in balancing missiles and AMS, so that AMS is not easily overwhelmed and/or has its effectiveness reduced too much.
- Gauss Rifles: The nerf was needed. In close quarters they're basically hit-scan weapons that can insta-kill most lights when used in pairs (especially if also paired with a PPC or Lasers of nearly any sort). This slows down their killing potential significantly and helps ensure the Gauss Rifle stays in its proper role as a sniping weapon . . . not a high-PPFLD brawling cannon. That should be the AC/20's job, period.
- Laser Changes: Personally, I still think one maximum range should be set for each laser type (standard, pulse, and ER). Then, you adjust the optimal ranges, damage, heat, etc. to ensure that there is significant flavor difference between factions. Clan should be higher heat, higher optimal range (thus a quick, sharp drop-off), longer burn time, and higher damage. IS should be lower heat, lower optimal range (thus a longer, gradual drop-off), shorter burn time, and lower damage. This should be consistent across all laser types, while of course taking the functionality of each type into consideration for specific numerical adjustments. The Inner Sphere will eventually flesh out the rest of its ER series, so it should be taken into account now. Also, the IS base laser series should be a more heat efficient (for a laser) average-performing choice to give it something special. I think the current changes are moving in that direction, PGI just needs to make the final push for it.
Heat Sink Changes
Spoiler
We're continuing to move in a decent direction with the heat changes. However, I still adamantly stand behind the concept of a smaller fixed heat scale with more aggressive cooling. Make SHS unique by actually allowing them to increase your heat capacity (they're simple and rugged, right?), which puts them in the best place for high alpha peek-and-shoot builds, but still subpar for a brawl. However, that doesn't seem to be the way that PGI wants to go . . . and I understand that, because it's difficult to balance two tech sets.
So, now we're left with the quandary of truly making differences between SHS, IS-DHS, and C-DHS; and of course we want all selections to be viable in some form. Here is my recommendation on where to take the current tuning:
1. "Base Ten" Heat Sinks - Make them all "true-dubs", period. This sets a solid baseline of performance that we know any mech can meet. At the very least, if we can't do this for all 10 minimum heatsinks (for engines under 250), then at least do it for all "In-Engine" heatsinks. This makes any build reasonably viable, even if they retain SHS builds.
2. Base Capacity - Lower this drastically. If the "Base Ten" plan is in place, and the "pre heat sink" capacity is set to 15, then we know that with 10 "true-dubs" in the mech we're setting a minimum heat capacity of 35 for any mech, stock. This prevents small lights/mediums from carrying minimum heatsinks and running builds that spam things like 2-PPCs or 2-ERLL builds with reckless abandon. If you want to run hot weapons then you'll want the heatsinks to support them, or just fire slower.
3. SHS - Jack of all trades, master of none. Give these values that make them reasonably functional for any type of build and situation. 1.2 cooling, 1.2 capacity is a pretty good place. This should be reasonably efficient for ballistic heavy builds while allowing them to save crit space for things like ammo and upgrades. That's where we're currently sitting on the PTS, but it also requires the "Base Ten" plan, above, to be in a really good spot.
4. IS-DHS - Best at capacity, not at cooling. Give these heat sinks values that make them best for the high-alpha builds (especially since IS weapons are less heat efficient), while not as great for cooling. Values such as 1.1 cooling and 1.6 capacity make these exceptional choices and mechs for being able to take a great deal of heat without shutting down (while not making heat caps absurdly large). However, it's going to take quite a while to shed off all of that heat.
5. C-DHS - Best at cooling, not at capacity. The current PTS values are nearly perfect for this concept. 1.0 capacity and 1.8 cooling allow clan mechs to fire off many weapons in chain-fire or volley-fire in aggressive fashion, and continue to cool off enough to keep pace with extended engagements. However, large alphas and massive group spam will leave the mech quickly shutting down with their much lower capacity.
Now, granted, this is one of the more hot-button topics. I don't expect everyone to agree with my concept. However, I hope it serves to give PGI a solid understanding of my beliefs (and I'm sure at least similar beliefs of others), while also giving them ideas to help with the balancing quandary they have on all these heat sink types and technology levels.
We're continuing to move in a decent direction with the heat changes. However, I still adamantly stand behind the concept of a smaller fixed heat scale with more aggressive cooling. Make SHS unique by actually allowing them to increase your heat capacity (they're simple and rugged, right?), which puts them in the best place for high alpha peek-and-shoot builds, but still subpar for a brawl. However, that doesn't seem to be the way that PGI wants to go . . . and I understand that, because it's difficult to balance two tech sets.
So, now we're left with the quandary of truly making differences between SHS, IS-DHS, and C-DHS; and of course we want all selections to be viable in some form. Here is my recommendation on where to take the current tuning:
1. "Base Ten" Heat Sinks - Make them all "true-dubs", period. This sets a solid baseline of performance that we know any mech can meet. At the very least, if we can't do this for all 10 minimum heatsinks (for engines under 250), then at least do it for all "In-Engine" heatsinks. This makes any build reasonably viable, even if they retain SHS builds.
2. Base Capacity - Lower this drastically. If the "Base Ten" plan is in place, and the "pre heat sink" capacity is set to 15, then we know that with 10 "true-dubs" in the mech we're setting a minimum heat capacity of 35 for any mech, stock. This prevents small lights/mediums from carrying minimum heatsinks and running builds that spam things like 2-PPCs or 2-ERLL builds with reckless abandon. If you want to run hot weapons then you'll want the heatsinks to support them, or just fire slower.
3. SHS - Jack of all trades, master of none. Give these values that make them reasonably functional for any type of build and situation. 1.2 cooling, 1.2 capacity is a pretty good place. This should be reasonably efficient for ballistic heavy builds while allowing them to save crit space for things like ammo and upgrades. That's where we're currently sitting on the PTS, but it also requires the "Base Ten" plan, above, to be in a really good spot.
4. IS-DHS - Best at capacity, not at cooling. Give these heat sinks values that make them best for the high-alpha builds (especially since IS weapons are less heat efficient), while not as great for cooling. Values such as 1.1 cooling and 1.6 capacity make these exceptional choices and mechs for being able to take a great deal of heat without shutting down (while not making heat caps absurdly large). However, it's going to take quite a while to shed off all of that heat.
5. C-DHS - Best at cooling, not at capacity. The current PTS values are nearly perfect for this concept. 1.0 capacity and 1.8 cooling allow clan mechs to fire off many weapons in chain-fire or volley-fire in aggressive fashion, and continue to cool off enough to keep pace with extended engagements. However, large alphas and massive group spam will leave the mech quickly shutting down with their much lower capacity.
Now, granted, this is one of the more hot-button topics. I don't expect everyone to agree with my concept. However, I hope it serves to give PGI a solid understanding of my beliefs (and I'm sure at least similar beliefs of others), while also giving them ideas to help with the balancing quandary they have on all these heat sink types and technology levels.
Skill Tree Changes
Spoiler
Just like the ECM changes, it felt like a choir of angels sang hymns of glory when I saw these changes and played them. Well . . . almost. There are still some vital things that need to be addressed here.
1. Numeric Value Nerfs: These changes are WONDERFUL!!! A mastered mech should feel like it has a minor combat edge over a stock counterpart, not feel like an entirely different mech. I go over more information about this and why it's a good thing to not have such a massive performance change HERE. DO NOT BACK DOWN ON THESE CHANGES! THEY ARE HUGELY BENEFICIAL TO MWO AS A WHOLE AND PLAYED WONDERFULLY! Sorry for the caps, but seriously, these changes ensured that mechs actually felt like the mech you were piloting and not like a completely different twitch-machine once mastered.
2. Pinpoint: What is it being changed out for? This will be extremely important. I'd personally recommend something that possibly increases the optimal ranges of weapons by 5%. That affects any weapon system but also mitigates the whole "laser targeting nerf" when you don't have something targeted. If you modify something like TAR, targeting retention, or target acquisition delay, then you need to consider the repercussions across the board, and it could get really ugly.
3. Speed Tweak: NEEDS TO DIE! There should be no quirk that is the equivalent of 3-4 engine sizes worth of upgrade (which would also be equal to the cost of a multi hundred thousand if not multi-million c-bill piece of equipment). This also exacerbates problems like speed caps, MASC, and overall gameplay. It wouldn't be such a heartache to put mechs like the Flea or Dasher/Fire Moth in the game if Speed Tweak didn't exist. It would also help curb the utter obsession with speed that everyone feels they need to squeeze out of their mechs. I strongly suggest changing this out for something like a 5-10% radar range and call it something like "Scanner Tweak".
Just like the ECM changes, it felt like a choir of angels sang hymns of glory when I saw these changes and played them. Well . . . almost. There are still some vital things that need to be addressed here.
1. Numeric Value Nerfs: These changes are WONDERFUL!!! A mastered mech should feel like it has a minor combat edge over a stock counterpart, not feel like an entirely different mech. I go over more information about this and why it's a good thing to not have such a massive performance change HERE. DO NOT BACK DOWN ON THESE CHANGES! THEY ARE HUGELY BENEFICIAL TO MWO AS A WHOLE AND PLAYED WONDERFULLY! Sorry for the caps, but seriously, these changes ensured that mechs actually felt like the mech you were piloting and not like a completely different twitch-machine once mastered.
2. Pinpoint: What is it being changed out for? This will be extremely important. I'd personally recommend something that possibly increases the optimal ranges of weapons by 5%. That affects any weapon system but also mitigates the whole "laser targeting nerf" when you don't have something targeted. If you modify something like TAR, targeting retention, or target acquisition delay, then you need to consider the repercussions across the board, and it could get really ugly.
3. Speed Tweak: NEEDS TO DIE! There should be no quirk that is the equivalent of 3-4 engine sizes worth of upgrade (which would also be equal to the cost of a multi hundred thousand if not multi-million c-bill piece of equipment). This also exacerbates problems like speed caps, MASC, and overall gameplay. It wouldn't be such a heartache to put mechs like the Flea or Dasher/Fire Moth in the game if Speed Tweak didn't exist. It would also help curb the utter obsession with speed that everyone feels they need to squeeze out of their mechs. I strongly suggest changing this out for something like a 5-10% radar range and call it something like "Scanner Tweak".
Quirks So Far
Spoiler
Ok, aside from some obvious typos, like the Enforcer 4P having +875m sensor range, most of these are in a pretty good spot . . . for a first pass and proof of concept. However, I do have a number of generic comments to add to this:
1. Please keep the quirks as lore friendly as possible. For example, right now the JR7-D has the best defensive quirks, but the JR7-F comes with the most stock armor and is the tankiest of the bunch. In that case give the D the most weapon capabilities, the F the most defensive capabilities, and the K the most IW capabilities. Also, the Wolfhound has ZERO quirks on any of its variants . . . did this accidently get looked over? It should be THE tank among light mechs as a baseline.
2. Tying into #1, why on earth is the Raven one of the worst scouting mechs out there, particularly the 3L? I can see the 2X and 4X having lower sensor ranges (the 2X should focus on weapons and the 4X on defenses), but giving the 3L a 600m base sensor range makes zero sense, because it is an IW powerhouse. Again, please look at lore for these mechs when assigning quirks.
3. The blanket quirks over the whole mech are a nice touch in most situations, and can get the job done. However, please don't hesitate to utilize specific quirks for things like the Awesome CT or Centurion Shield Arm.
4. I'm trying to reserve as much judgment on quirks now as possible. When PGI states that, "Hey, these are the quirks we'd like to launch with, what do you thing?" I'll be sure to give full write-ups on every chassis (and variant, if necessary) that I have mastered. Especially so for lights, as they're my primary weight class of choice. That said, so far many of the light quirks are pretty nice . . . they just need to reflect lore more (again, see #1 above).
5. I noticed some things with modules, like the Urbanmech only having one consumable, but there was very little in this vein. Don't hesitate from using module slots as another means for balancing mechs. For Example: Mechs like the SDR-5V can easily be given 4 consumables and 3-4 mech modules as a means of making them a great scouting mech, while balancing their pitiful firepower and only giving them 1 weapon module (all they really need . . . pick cooldown or range for your weapon of choice). Regardless, this is another "quirking" avenue of balance that has yet to really see a lot of action on. Please don't hesitate to use it, as it can make a big difference for a mech.
Ok, aside from some obvious typos, like the Enforcer 4P having +875m sensor range, most of these are in a pretty good spot . . . for a first pass and proof of concept. However, I do have a number of generic comments to add to this:
1. Please keep the quirks as lore friendly as possible. For example, right now the JR7-D has the best defensive quirks, but the JR7-F comes with the most stock armor and is the tankiest of the bunch. In that case give the D the most weapon capabilities, the F the most defensive capabilities, and the K the most IW capabilities. Also, the Wolfhound has ZERO quirks on any of its variants . . . did this accidently get looked over? It should be THE tank among light mechs as a baseline.
2. Tying into #1, why on earth is the Raven one of the worst scouting mechs out there, particularly the 3L? I can see the 2X and 4X having lower sensor ranges (the 2X should focus on weapons and the 4X on defenses), but giving the 3L a 600m base sensor range makes zero sense, because it is an IW powerhouse. Again, please look at lore for these mechs when assigning quirks.
3. The blanket quirks over the whole mech are a nice touch in most situations, and can get the job done. However, please don't hesitate to utilize specific quirks for things like the Awesome CT or Centurion Shield Arm.
4. I'm trying to reserve as much judgment on quirks now as possible. When PGI states that, "Hey, these are the quirks we'd like to launch with, what do you thing?" I'll be sure to give full write-ups on every chassis (and variant, if necessary) that I have mastered. Especially so for lights, as they're my primary weight class of choice. That said, so far many of the light quirks are pretty nice . . . they just need to reflect lore more (again, see #1 above).
5. I noticed some things with modules, like the Urbanmech only having one consumable, but there was very little in this vein. Don't hesitate from using module slots as another means for balancing mechs. For Example: Mechs like the SDR-5V can easily be given 4 consumables and 3-4 mech modules as a means of making them a great scouting mech, while balancing their pitiful firepower and only giving them 1 weapon module (all they really need . . . pick cooldown or range for your weapon of choice). Regardless, this is another "quirking" avenue of balance that has yet to really see a lot of action on. Please don't hesitate to use it, as it can make a big difference for a mech.
So far there have been many good things to come out of these PTS Phases, and it's moving in the right direction at a reasonable pace. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you, PGI, for undertaking this HUGE (but extremely necessary) endeavor of rebalancing the game. Things like super-quirked mechs and non-functional weapons (please fix my poor flamers for the rebalance) are really killing the fun for me. I love MWO and want to see it be a great success for the Battletech/MechWarrior IP. Thank you, as well, for taking player feedback into consideration for these balance changes.
