402 replies to this topic

[DoctorDetroit]

Elit3 Nick, on 15 November 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

Really? I know lots of people were crying that the optimal range loss mechanic would ruin their laser meta but now that completely breaks the info warfare changes you were planning (I'm guessing that's why it was delayed) You could've set the range loss to something more manageable like 40-30%, but now with that gone everyone will just alpha their LLs as soon as they see someone like they've been always doing. Please PGI the whole re-balance was built around this mechanic, and now that you've listened to the whiners your whole re-balance will be nothing more than a quirk refresh and info warfare mechanics that won't stop you from being maimed by 5-6 LL meta builds across the map.

The mechanic made no sense logically, would have been hard on new players, and unnecessarily annoying for veterans. It is far easier to curb laser vomit meta by lowering heat capacity, nerfing lasers, or buffing missiles/ACs. Adding ghost heat to MPLs is probably going to help with that as well.

Titinus, on 15 November 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

PGI,

Please listen to your player base I am a member of a clan of 160 players and we are all in shock about the mech tree Skills changes. The unlocking of the skill tree has been the one consistent driving force for all mechwarriors to achieve. It is a equal bonus for all pilots since its implementation and one of the few consistent forces in gameplay. By reducing the level based qualifier you remove incentive for a player to put the time in each mech and get to truly unlock its potential. you can't believe how many new pilots come into the game spouting how a certain "mech Sucks". Our response is always the same is it mastered? Once a mech is mastered it comes into its own. They mostly keep at it and begin to love the mech as they unlock its true potential. I am afraid you are tampering with something that has become a real core feature of the game that no one has had a issue with. remember if it is not broke don't fix it. Mech efficiencies are not broken leave them alone.

Changing mech efficiencies adds nothing to game play it actually takes away from game play, hurts the player base and the ability of new players to want to excel at MechWarrior.

Can you name a successful business model that consistently removes features and benefits given to its clients that in turn grows from this effort. It would be like Walmart offering "new higher prices with even lower quality" and expecting to attract new clientele.

Ya, I thought they were going to rework the skill tree which is desperately needed. Not just nerf the values and call it a day.

Edited by DoctorDetroit, 15 November 2015 - 08:22 AM.

[Vashramire]

I honestly don't understand how people can find grinding out Efficiencies fun. Till you Elite out a mech it's like trudging through molasses compared to others that likely have full Efficiencies. I don't like feeling like my mech is garbage for the first ~20k xp. It's only painful because of the extreme values you get from them currently. It actually makes me not want to play some mechs I own because of it. I believe that the 3 mech variant tied to Elites should be removed as it was silly in the first place and makes even less sense on PTR.

As of now you have to go all in on 3 mechs (which can get expensive and take a while for heavier mechs) to even find out if you like how it handles or get 1 or more variants you don't like to play the one you do. I remember going through 2 Victors before I couldn't take it any more and sold them. I'm sure an Elited Victor is fine but the process of getting there was atrocious. Ideally the whole thing should be replaced by a skill tree that presents options to how you like to play and not a "collect them all till you can feel like a complete mech" (ie: Kinetic Burst vs Hard Brake but not both so the values could be higher than currently on PTR).

Basic example

Edited by Vashramire, 15 November 2015 - 08:58 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

And players have already been targeting Clan Mech side torsos. They have less armor than CT and so are easier to shoot off, and take a good number of weapons with it. Now, because PGI hasn't been able to implement actual engine criting, they have decided to hammer Clan players with a handicap for being Clan players. (And yes, I fully realize that if an IS pilot puts an XL and his side torso gets shot away he is dead, but he has a choice to run that engine, the Clan player does not). My point is, if PGI could figure out engine criting, the robustness of Clan engines (3 crits before destruction vs IS two crits) would be offset by their volume over IS standard engines).

Of course people shoot the side torsos as most Clan mechs have a non-humanoid shape. Hai, Clan mech may have lost half of their weapons but they are still moving and firing, where as a similarly equipped IS mech using an ISXL engine that allows it to move at a similar Clan speed, are primarily humanoid shaped, dies to the loss of the side torso in a game that has no actual engine crits. That IS mech is out of the game as it can not continue moving at a brisk clip, absorbing damage and firing its remaining weapons.

And what Clan mech would you even consider using with a Standard engine?

With that said, 20% APPEARS harsh, but then the mech is still ALIVE and STILL has the ability to take and give damage, even if only with half of its original payload.

Except for some IS Assaults due to low engine cap there would not be much difference, if an IS mech using an IS-XL did not die with the loss of one side torso and had similar penalties as listed for the upcoming PTS4, I would still take that IS-XL over a standard engine for the same reason as you would still take a Clan XL (quoted from another thread) :

DivineEvil, on 14 November 2015 - 06:53 AM, said:

Quote

Durability is the single most valuable thing a 'Mech can possess.

It's not. Firepower is one extra thing, that mech can posess. Mobility is second extra thing, that mech can posess. Added durability just amplifies those two aspects, just as those two aspects when added are amplifying the base durability. Durability on it's own means nothing in a picture of MWO combat.

If you don't have firepower to bring, durability is more help to your enemies than to your allies, and if you don't have mobility to keep yourself in an appropriate position, then your durability is a question of focus fire and backstabbing. The most valuable thing is an effectively balanced tandem of these three things working together, which is why Heavy mechs are favored over Assaults basically 24/7. These three parameters are value-wise equal, and it's PGI concern to add InfoTech as a fourth one in the mix.

The whole point behind IS/Clan balance issue, is that if not all, most Clan mechs overpower the IS mechs by Durability, Firepower and Mobility altogether, and pay nothing in return. Such as two cars participating in the same race, yet where one has better Acceleration, and better Top Speed, and better Handling, than another one, yet expected to perform as equal.

What I'm trying to advocate for, is giving IS mechs a single advantage across those three aspects, where it counters most if not all of the Clan mech advantages, and where you're now can tell the choice between IS mech and same-mass Clan mech is roughly equivalent.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 November 2015 - 09:07 AM.

[AlexTRoopeR]

The new players are gonna get squashed anyway. With higher efficiencies they would be enticed to play and get them, thinking that is the reason they do bad. Which would increase their skill also. Small efficiencies will go unnoticed, make them think the game is too hard, and backfire!

[Tarl Cabot]

AlexTRoopeR, on 15 November 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

The new players are gonna get squashed anyway. With higher efficiencies they would be enticed to play and get them, thinking that is the reason they do bad. Which would increase their skill also. Small efficiencies will go unnoticed, make them think the game is too hard, and backfire!

They will be started in Tier 4 and with that much influx of new players, I do not see it being that bad. Having played an old account that had me in Tier 4, it was more mellow play than tier 2/3. Ran only trial mechs that has no Skills and still did well, win or lose. It will impact the players currently here more than anything.

The other think is the cost of the Skills, do they plan keeping cost at their current price tag, because some of the changes makes the cost appear outlandish.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 November 2015 - 09:19 AM.

[KahnWongFuChung]

Hey PGI listen up fools you can balance mechs weapons etc.untill hell freezes over and it wont fix your game.

The vote map system is a joke the report system was a joke and even now CW is the biggest joke of all with 12 man teams desimating pug teams for there rewards and pugs get nothing no rewards and just a stomp almost 99% of the time.

So FIX YOU DAMM CW AND SOLO GAME FIRST BEFORE DOING MORE IDIOTIC BALANCE THAT JUST DISTRACTS THE PLAYERS FROM THE TRUTH YOU GAME IS A JOKE.

P.S HERE IS A BALANCE TIP FOR YOU DOUBLE THE ARMOR LIKE YOU SAID YOU DID STOP LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING.

[Kael Posavatz]

But we've been working to this point for nearly half a year.

Nothing has changed in CW since what, June? Everything has been geared towards getting the Rebalance done because that was needed for Steam, and Steam was seen as critical before CW Phase III.

The Rebalance was pitched as a scrap what we have and start over, with everything built/balanced around Sensors, Mobility, Armor, and firepower.

PGI has just chucked out the Sensors which leaves...more of the same, really, rather than this grand rethinking of how the game is balanced.

The IS weapon quirks become more generic, which will hamper some high-meta builds. On the other hand, those generic buff-quirks are more powerful than the generic quirks they replace. (Mostly, the RVN-4X gets left alone...joy). The 'Armor +X%' type quirks are gone in favor of straight values (very nice), and some mechs trade movement quirks for armor quirks or vice versa (a few pick up both or lose both).

On the other hand they announce the testing of a major kick to the teeth of a substantial number of players.

Their mechs are going to run 20% hotter (loss of .3 heat capacity per heatsink) to the point that IS single heatsinks have a heat capacity eight percent greater than a Clan double, and an IS double heatsink capacity twenty seven percent greater! This with weapons that run substantially cooler.

The proposed 20% reduction to engine-dependent variables with the loss of a Clan side torso comes as a slap. IS players are already targeting side torsos. Many of the Omnis have huge side torso hitboxes, or hitboxes that are extra-squishy.

Also there is the not-so minor problem is the implication that the propose reduction to an Omni mech's maneuverability, speed, etc. is because of engine damage. The problem with this argument is that PGI has not instituted engine damage in the first place! If there was engine damage in the game the more compact IS standard engine would offset against the more robust Clan engine. Would there need to be quirks to balance these variables? Of course there would! Maybe the IS engine crits would have a reduced chance of actually being hit, for example. But my point is that there would be an actual mechanic for engine damage in the game. There isn't, and PGI is trying to pretend there is.

Even more than the changes to engines and heatsinks, I think my biggest gripe with this announcement is that PGI did not release the test-quirks for the Clan mechs. I realize there is a weekend. I also know that a lot of people have been looking at the proposed weapon changes, looking at the heatsink changes, looking at the quirk changes, and after quietly panicking for a moment, stopping to actually think and realizing that these proposed changes look pretty good.

They are not the grand Rebalanced pitched to us, no. But for a major, if incremental, improvement they look pretty good.

However.

The IS v. Clan imbalance has been the major source of contention since the Clans were introduced. This rebalance was supposed to address that. Now we are standing on the cusp of the last announced PTS (I, for one, doubt there is enough time to run another before the rebalance needs to go live in early December).

We have this new major changes to the Clans in hampering mech performance when a side torso is lost (the changes to heatsinks and skill trees were at least tested before, even if values have changed).

This thing is supposed to be about balance, but PGI only gave us one side to look at!

As a math-person would say:
"HOW ARE WE TO BALANCE THE PROBLEM WHEN WE ARE MISSING HALF THE EQUATION! "

Edited by Kael 17, 15 November 2015 - 09:36 AM.

[Deathlike]

Bush Hopper, on 15 November 2015 - 06:17 AM, said:

Geez...as someone who grew up with the tabletop I want to scream when I see that. The IS worst problem was not only that clan tech was superior but that omnis could be equipped and custom-tailored for each and every mission they were sent on.

In MWO IS can replace engines as easily as switching underwear. Whatever...

But, the upcoming IICs don't matter? They follow the same IS building rules while using Clan Tech (can swap in bigger/smaller Clan XL engines to boot). You just can't mix and match sections of the mech (no omnipods - thus you are stuck with the hardpoints you have - like IS battlemechs)...

Edited by Deathlike, 15 November 2015 - 09:43 AM.

[EmperorMyrf]

First, thanks PGI for letting us not only see this data/info but test it all in the PTSs.

To address specific things:

Optimal Laser Ranges on Locks:
Glad to see it go. We need a more global approach to making IW tech matter and not forcing them to only affect certain weapon types.

Infotech:
I hope to see this come back soon. Though it was not in an ideal state in PTS3 (which was the best iteration yet) I felt it was getting there. One thing I hope to see is the dropping of the idea that larger mechs have smaller targeting ranges than smaller mechs, and instead allow mechs of each weight class that are infotech specialists have very similar, strong sensor ranges. I'd expect a Commando to have a similar sensor range to, say, a Cyclops and I'd expect a Jenner to have a similar sensor range to an Atlas. The delay in target acqusition dependent on target mech size however was great, and I hope to see that make it into the live game (though I'd say a bit more extreme than in PTS3, but I understand this is iterative). Also, the changes to ECM were spot-on in PTS3.

Weapons:
I'm sort of disappointed here. While I'm glad that SRMs, LRMS, and AC/2s are getting buffed and GRs are getting a very reasonable nerf, I just feel like all DPS needs to decrease for all weapons, and really all of the core values need to be revisited. Though there were many things busted in closed beta pre-DHS, the pace of the game was never better. Comparing it to now, the overall DPS of mechs has increased by between 40% and 100%, and the number of mechs in a match has increased by 50%, meaning mechs today drop up to 200% faster (or take 33% of the time it used to take to kill a mech) than they did in CB. I feel a very harsh reduction in DPS needs to be implemented in order to bring that back in line. I am at least glad to see Clan max ranges drop a bit, so long as their optimal ranges remain untouched as they are.

I'm hoping the current changes are just a stop-gap for the steam release and that weapon balance will be revisited soon.

Equipment:
As I already said, ECM changes in PTS3 are spot-on. Now for the HS changes of the PTS4, I like the direction it's going but I feel it's just not enough. I would first say that the base heat of 30 needs to be removed on all mechs, except maybe a few quirks here and there, and that HSs increase to heat capacity should be between double and triple what it is now. For instance, the nerf to Clan DHSs will mean that clan mechs might lose ~3-6 Heat capacity compared to their total heat capacity of ~44-58, where without the base heat offset they would be losing ~6-18 capacity, making these nerfs much more noticeable. Then I would say to leave SHS dissipation at 0.1/s where it is and crank the capacity to 40% higher.

Oh and remove true-dubs in the engine. Engine true-dubs only lower TTK and almost make taking smaller engines less of a good option. If TT players fuss over there not being true double heat sinks you can just say they're at RMS values (total magnitude / SQRT(2) ~= 1.414).

As for Clan-XL engines, I'm glad there is an attempt to reduce the gap between them and IS-XL, but there needs to be some sort of buff for IS-XL that acts as a counter to Clan-XLs allowing whatever equips it to live through a ST loss. It could probably be something simple like a boost to structure, so long as IS-STD engines also feel a similar buff.

Mech Efficiencies:
I'm glad to see these decrease, but I'm disappointed that they're even being touched. I don't have any suggestions, but I guess I was hoping to see a completely revamped skill tree. Again I hope this is just a steam release stop-gap to be revisited.

Quirks:
I was hoping to see a large decrease in the strength of quirks and the complete removal of weapon-specific quirks. I'll reserve judgement until I get some playtime on the PTS, but I'm at least glad that half of what I expected is there.


Overall I'm still looking forward to playing on the PTS.

[-Ramrod-]

Please stop buffing Clan Missiles. Please add a MUCH higher heat penalty for Clan streaks. These streakcrows/dogs/summoners are really becoming a problem. No quirks for Clan mechs please. Not even negative ones. They are just fine without quirks. I've piloted Clan and IS mechs quite a bit so I do know what I'm talking about. Let the flaming being !

[no one]

AlexTRoopeR, on 15 November 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

The new players are gonna get squashed anyway. With higher efficiencies they would be enticed to play and get them, thinking that is the reason they do bad. Which would increase their skill also. Small efficiencies will go unnoticed, make them think the game is too hard, and backfire!

Titinus, on 15 November 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

By reducing the level based qualifier you remove incentive for a player to put the time in each mech and get to truly unlock its potential. you can't believe how many new pilots come into the game spouting how a certain "mech Sucks". Our response is always the same is it mastered? Once a mech is mastered it comes into its own. They mostly keep at it and begin to love the mech as they unlock its true potential. I am afraid you are tampering with something that has become a real core feature of the game that no one has had a issue with. remember if it is not broke don't fix it. Mech efficiencies are not broken leave them alone.

This is silly. Especially the 'it's not broken' bit. Leaving aside that Mech efficiencies in their current form were meant to be a placeholder and that many of them do literally nothing, you just pointed out a major flaw in the current system. Un-mastered 'Mechs are terrible. New players? Truly new players aren't even going to know about efficiencies until they've played some and noticed 'oh hey I'm getting XP, I wonder what that's for'. Throwing new people to the wolves in potatoes has never been a positive thing. Of course we're still looking at more or less the same flat percentage skill trees that don't consider weight class and aren't tailored to a chassis in any way so... meh.

That and lowering the impact of the skill efficiencies while not also raising the base performance of 'mechs to compensate is going to leave a lot of people pissed off that their assault 'Mechs suddenly drive even more like a rusty farm cart. With luck . . . aaand a lot of people complaining about how they can no longer back up in their favorite stalker or turn to look right in their battle master we'll get some tailored performance boosts for clunkier 'mechs somewhere down the line.

On the bright side the Urbie is immune to one skill change. 360 degree torso twist motha-faccka!

[DoctorDetroit]

Ramrod AI, on 15 November 2015 - 01:48 PM, said:

Please stop buffing Clan Missiles. Please add a MUCH higher heat penalty for Clan streaks. These streakcrows/dogs/summoners are really becoming a problem. No quirks for Clan mechs please. Not even negative ones. They are just fine without quirks. I've piloted Clan and IS mechs quite a bit so I do know what I'm talking about. Let the flaming being !

If they do not quirk low tier clan mechs, then clan mech variety will be disgustingly limited.

However, clan and IS SRMs seem well out of balance considering the weight differences of the weapons. That would be the first issue to tackle.

Edited by DoctorDetroit, 15 November 2015 - 02:21 PM.

[no one]

EmperorMyrf, on 15 November 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Weapons:
Comparing it to now, the overall DPS of mechs has increased by between 40% and 100%, and the number of mechs in a match has increased by 50%, meaning mechs today drop up to 200% faster (or take 33% of the time it used to take to kill a mech) than they did in CB.

Time to kill is more heavily impacted by damage per shot than it is by damage per second. If you walk around a corner and four people fire at you, their alpha strike power and focus is going to matter a lot more than their re-fire rate.

EmperorMyrf, on 15 November 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Mech Efficiencies:
I guess I was hoping to see a completely revamped skill tree. Again I hope this is just a steam release stop-gap to be revisited.

I know, right?

DoctorDetroit, on 15 November 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

If they do not quirk low tier clan mechs, then clan mech variety will be disgustingly limited.

Yeah, once IICs have been out for a bit PGI should just let people convert Clan 'Mechs to non-omnis for a high c-bill cost or modest MC cost. That would move some 'Mech bays and 'Mechs.

DoctorDetroit, on 15 November 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

However, clan and IS SRMs seem well out of balance considering the weight differences of the weapons. That would be the first issue to tackle.

And yet SRMs are still so disgustingly low on the hierarchy of weapons that even clan 'Mechs rarely use them. I wouldn't object to giving IS SRMs more ammo per ton to balance the lighter launchers, personally. It's messed up that SRMs never got the ammo/ton increase other weapons did. Errr, except machine guns which got a huge effective decrease in damage per ton of ammo because machine guns OP, right? Derp.

Edited by no one, 15 November 2015 - 02:45 PM.

[EmperorMyrf]

no one, on 15 November 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:

Time to kill is more heavily impacted by damage per shot than it is by damage per second. If you walk around a corner and four people fire at you, their alpha strike power and focus is going to matter a lot more than their re-fire rate.

I agree. But it's for another thread

[Vashramire]

no one, on 15 November 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:

Errr, except machine guns which got a huge effective decrease in damage per ton of ammo because machine guns OP, right? Derp.

And now mechs with MG quirks(RoF and range) were removed. Obviously we have missed the MG meta somehow.

[shopsmart]

The MG rate of fire removal might be a network communication issue that we haven't been told about. Other than that, I can think of no reason to do this. They did bump up component HP during the test server, so maybe they thought MGs are to strong. Seems a little far fetched. Maybe they will introduce a module that increases ROF.

[north ranger]

Thank you PGI for taking the extra time to tune Info Warfare and get it right. Also I hope ECM continues to lose its AoE stealth field in favor of a targeting delay and negated info gathering. Imho, mechs with ECM should only be target-able by sighting the aiming crosshairs on the ECM mech and pressing "R." Very simple and straight-forward "visual targeting."

]Very sad to see the mech skills wither away. Really the grinding aspect of the game is not very rewarding now. Could we see a possible revamp of Skills by Mech’s gaining basic, elite and master status based on the total XP earned in the mech. Regardless of skills unlocked.. i.e. Basic @ 15k, Elite @ 35K, and Master @ 50k. Then ]Skills could have new optional paths like Gunnery, Engineering or Sensors....
Engineering
Tier 1 Cool Run,Kinetic Burst,Twist Speed, Arm Reflex
Tier 2: Heat Containment, Hard Brake,Twist X, Quick Ignition
Tier 3: Anchor Turn, ]Speed Tweak
Tier 4: Module Slot
Gunnery
Ballistic Range, Laser Range, Missile Spread
>Ballistic Velocity, Laser Duration, Missile Speed
>>Ballistic Heat Gen, Laser Heat Gen, Missile Heat Gen
>>>Fast Fire, Module Slot
Sensors *thematically similar to the current modules*
Sensor Range, Zoom Distance, Advanced UAV
>Improved Trgt Decay, Pinpoint
>>Improved Info Gathering, Double UAV
>>> Improved Info Share, Module Slot
*Adv UAV: Improves LRM accuracy.
*Double UAV: Second UAV module equipable.
*Imp. Info Share: Allies benefit from your targeting speed on your targeted enemy.

Cheers!

*edited for copy/paste fail.

Edited by Trinity Xavier, 15 November 2015 - 03:53 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Vashramire, on 15 November 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

And now mechs with MG quirks(RoF and range) were removed. Obviously we have missed the MG meta somehow.

shopsmart, on 15 November 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

The MG rate of fire removal might be a network communication issue that we haven't been told about. Other than that, I can think of no reason to do this. They did bump up component HP during the test server, so maybe they thought MGs are to strong. Seems a little far fetched. Maybe they will introduce a module that increases ROF.

What they need is a blanket buff to 1 DPS (from 0.8 DPS), and a decrease in their Cone of Fire.

Currently set to 1.5 'spread', a 3M CoF, it should be cut down to 0.5M CoF for the cMG, and 0.25M CoF for the isMG.

[shopsmart]

Another with mech XP. They need find another use for it. Something to burn it off. Maybe one shot exp things that do something for your mech for 3 seconds or something. Look at it as pushing it to the limit. % chance of damage. Something. I can see why they are nerfing the exp things. Big lumbering mechs or agile humans. Think for awhile on that. BUT they need to add more branching out and maybe specialization with customization of exp model. Like one can be more offensive or tank or faster. But not all 3.

[Veritae]

Azargo, on 13 November 2015 - 10:50 PM, said:

Umm, so, did the community take kindly to axing of the efficiencies? Where does making mechs handle worse factor in TTK increase?

Actually, yeah. It seemed almost universally positive feedback regarding the movement skill nerfs. Mechs seem like mechs now, and not twitch avatars. I take it you did not play on the pts? Maybe wait till it's live before commenting then.