354 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

pbiggz, on 25 January 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Do us the favour if actually asking for real balance instead of 10v12 and TT values on clan weapons, which we all know you want.

You must not have read my last post regarding your jab about this.

That ship sailed long ago.

10v12 is not going to happen, not at this stage in the game. Much as I, and many others likely, would have preferred they at least attempted...it is not going to happen.

At this point, what I want is for people to pull their heads out of their asses and admit that IS mechs are better right now...clan mechs need to be unnerfed a bit, and the bad clan robots need serious love.

Clans are no longer the boogeyman, the IS has plenty of those.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 25 January 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

By your own admission, an XL engine in an IS mech...regardless of circumstances...is more useful than a STD, regardless of the penalty for ST loss.

I didn't say for all mechs, but most use XLs (including my Wubshee :3).

Due to the structure buffs it is safer, that is the only reason, well that and humanoid designs with decently sized CTs. The whole point of buffing iXLs is to remove the craziness of the recent buffs and make it more universal for IS mechs (like the poor Vindi).

[Gyrok]

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Assuming that IS XL > STD for most gundams, this still means that the Clam XL > IS XL at the end of the day.

According to those above...it matters not. Given the advantage of taking a STD for the survivability, the mobility was most important to them.

The LFE gives the IS a hybrid of both, which makes a lot of sense.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 25 January 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

The LFE gives the IS a hybrid of both, which makes a lot of sense.

The problem is that it is still power creep which most of us are still trying to avoid.

[FupDup]

Gyrok, on 25 January 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

According to those above...it matters not. Given the advantage of taking a STD for the survivability, the mobility was most important to them.

The LFE gives the IS a hybrid of both, which makes a lot of sense.

Clam XL gives the same mobility/firepower of the IS XL while giving a level of survivability that is between IS XL and STD. Taking up slightly fewer critslots is a nifty bonus.

If we took the best IS XL gundams and plopped in Clam XLs in place, they would become that much stronker.

The Luffy would be a good engine, though still technically inferior to the Clam XL assuming that it had the same value of penalties (because it has the same survivability as Clam XL while being heavier).

[MerryIguana]

Aresye, on 24 January 2016 - 11:09 PM, said:

The IS has always held the advantage in brawling.

I remember clan launch a bit differently.

[Mawai]

I posted this at the end of another post in a different topic but it really belongs here.


A couple of comments on that ridiculous recent video of clan vs IS in 8v8 matches which proved nothing honestly. If those folks represent the calibre of competitive teams that are out there, I pity the MWO competitive scene. Personally, I think the video was a setup since if "peeking" and sniping the other team is the extent of competitive strategy ... I feel sorry for them. The clan mechs were equipped to gimp their effectiveness ... the clan team didn't work together ... they huddled up when they didn't want to be shot at. They didn't push when needed and they didn't close range. The IS ERLL aren't that heat efficient and suck when you close range. Anyway, if anything the matches just showed bad tactical, strategic and loadout choices rather than anything to do with clan vs IS balance.

Anyway, the matches should have also been 12 vs12 since that is the way the game is played at the moment. Or try a 1:1 Arctic Cheetah, Timberwolf, Stormcrow or Dire Whale vs a Stalker 4N ... who do you think will win? Personally, I think any of those clan mechs will defeat the "overpowered" Stalker 4N .. more often than not.

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 25 January 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

Problem with the Whammy is low mounts. If the Stalker could mount 8.5 heat PPCs at 1650 you think that wouldn't be common?

So if PPCs are accurate at range but limited by heat, why are you taking one instead of a 7 heat LPL or 8 heat ERLL? You're not, you're taking the laser.

So let me back up. I've had this argument in a couple of threads lately and it's asinine of me to assume you knew everything in them and were arguing the same point. Totally my bad.

So right now you've got LPLs at 7 tons, 7 heat at at the range most PPC combat takes place at (~500m) it's doing almost 10 pts over 2/3rd of a second and is hitscan. How do you make PPC compete with that and not be flat out superior? It's not a matter of velocity so much as heat for PPCs. At 1100m/s you're less than 1/2 a second to target. That's already enough time to guarantee a hit on someone shooting back with lasers; he's got to stay focused on you from the time you shoot to the time it hits him.

Make sense?

ERPPCs are heat AND velocity. ERLLs are largely balanced by stare time. If we're at 800m trading and I only have to expose myself for 0.3 or 0.5 seconds to get my ERPPC shots off you're only doing maybe 3 pts to me while I'm potentially tapping you for 35. If I can do so accurately and deliver my damage before you can twist away.... why would you take lasers?

So assuming you make PPC heat efficient enough to compete with LPLs at 400-500m and fast enough to compete with hitscan lasers at 800m.... why would you not take the weapon that lets you shoot and fade before the laser quits burning? We don't have a big issue with ERLLs and Gauss because a > 1 second burn time means you're face-tanking even with a Gauss loadout. If you eliminate that face-tank, you let me pop off PPFLD and move away before you can get a burn in with your lasers then why take the lasers?

So that's back to where we used to be. PPFLD designed to kill with minimal exposure at long range, everything else is effectively a brawling weapon based on the idea of rushing the PPC+ballistic guy and out-DPSing him while he is trying to kill you with precision shots before you close and eliminate his cover. At close range he'll have 2xAC5s or maybe Gauss, if you've got PPCs balanced by heat or long cooldown he'll probably have 2 AC5s.

So we know how that plays out already. I'm saying how do you fit PPCs in against LPLs and make them viable for the heat/tonnage but not inherently superior and how do you make heavier and hotter ERPPCs better than ERLLs without creating a situation where they are superior due to consistent accuracy without needing long exposure.

You make them good for trading at long range. The LPL is good for short to mid range and offers outstanding damage per heat and short duration.

PPCs give you less damage per heat, but excellent trading capability.

Keep in mind, we never had good PPCs with 3 LPLs (no ghost heat) at 11 dmg each for 7 heat. The LPL buffs came after the PPC nerfs. That's why I don't think PPCs all of a sudden become godlike with their velocity restored. Lasers are higher damage, lower heat. PPCs are snap shot trading FLD. You balance them around those two uses.

[Gyrok]

MerryIguana, on 25 January 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

I remember clan launch a bit differently.

I question the integrity of your memory.

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

Clam XL gives the same mobility/firepower of the IS XL while giving a level of survivability that is between IS XL and STD. Taking up slightly fewer critslots is a nifty bonus.

If we took the best IS XL gundams and plopped in Clam XLs in place, they would become that much stronker.

The Luffy would be a good engine, though still technically inferior to the Clam XL assuming that it had the same value of penalties (because it has the same survivability as Clam XL while being heavier).

Perhaps both do not have speed loss penalty, LFE has no heat penalty on ST loss?

Edited by Gyrok, 25 January 2016 - 11:43 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 January 2016 - 11:10 AM, said:

They aren't as low as people think, I can run 4 PPCs in the chest and they are almost hellbringer level. As for using the Stalker as an example of anything, very few mechs can abuse the high mounts like the Stalker so using that as a reason for not buffing PPCs is a bit silly don't you think? Not to mention the dynamic visual pass could easily change that on this mech.


Depends on how fast he is moving, any decent speed and it becomes hard to justify PPCs even if they were the same heat, provided you are using a range quirked mech, especially since LPLs are still useful outside of their optimal range whereas PPCs become less so. Ghost heat limit differences are also important to consider because 3 LPLs will be better than 2 PPCs unless something is drastically different.

Or the EBJ, or even the King Crab? There's more than a couple of high mounted energy weapon mechs. Are you saying the response is to.... remove all high weapon mounts? That's not a logical argument. Peeking and poking, top or side, is always going to be a factor to keep in mind for balance.

Right now PPCs are inferior to lasers. Not arguing that I'm trying to find a way to fix it. The point is however that if all other things are equal as in the PPC is just as viable to bring as an ERLL or LPL why are you going to pick the DoT weapon that requires 0.67-1.5 seconds of exposure to use instead of the PPFLD weapon that requires a fraction of a second?

Currently if you and I are, say, both in 4xERLL BLR1S and we're trading shots over a gate on Boreal Vault there is a very specific balance in place. If however you've got ERPPCs that are both heat efficient enough and fast enough to be accurate then you're going to win almost universally. Even if you're missing 20% of your shots you're dropping 20-40 pts on me each exchange 80% of the time. More importantly my damage is spread over your arms and torsos while your damage is popping me in 40pt increments off single locations. Even missing 20% of the time you're going to win that exchange.

So that comes back to the same question - if PPCs/ERPPCs are heat efficient and accurate enough to take relative to lasers then the ability to almost eliminate your exposure relative to lasers makes them flat out superior for the same job. How do you balance that effectively? Either a PPC is going to do what an LPL does but better.... or it isn't. Either an ERPPC is going to do what an ERLL does but better.... or it isn't.

Edited by MischiefSC, 25 January 2016 - 11:46 AM.

[MerryIguana]

Gyrok, on 25 January 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

I question the integrity of your memory.

Of course you do.

[FupDup]

MischiefSC, on 25 January 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

-
So that comes back to the same question - if PPCs/ERPPCs are heat efficient and accurate enough to take relative to lasers ...

The answer is that you don't make them heat efficient.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 25 January 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

You make them good for trading at long range. The LPL is good for short to mid range and offers outstanding damage per heat and short duration.

PPCs give you less damage per heat, but excellent trading capability.

Keep in mind, we never had good PPCs with 3 LPLs (no ghost heat) at 11 dmg each for 7 heat. The LPL buffs came after the PPC nerfs. That's why I don't think PPCs all of a sudden become godlike with their velocity restored. Lasers are higher damage, lower heat. PPCs are snap shot trading FLD. You balance them around those two uses.

Except that trades are more about damage given vs damage received and the ability to snapshot and avoid return fire trumps the higher potential damage. If you're hitting accurately at range with PPCs vs LPLs or ERLLs you're making those LPLs and ERLLs largely worthless for trades unless you push up to eliminate cover. 2LPLs, 3LPL, 6 MLS, doesn't matter. If I let you stay at range you're hitting me for 20+ pts on single locations and I'm only peeling a handful off points off in a spread location. A higher relative rate of fire doesn't mean anything if you're in cover between shots. It just means you're hull down longer with PPCs.

So you force a rush and effectively eliminate lasers for trades - which is what we used to have. With having lasers as trade weapons you force a certain amount of face-time on exchanges which leaves all weapons, even LRMs, a bit more viable. If I can trade with 0.25 or less exposure I'm going to win all trades against someone with lasers. The only time that isn't the case is when I can't accurately trade within a narrow pop-up window... in which case we're back to lasers.

I'm concerned that what you're talking about is just trying to balance PPCs on heat and cooldown and such which the reality of them is exactly what created issues with PPFLD vs DoT originally.

I'd be happy to play with it on the PTS, be happy to say 'whoops, my bad, I'm wrong, let's do it'. No issue with being wrong - not like that hasn't happened before.

What I absolutely do not trust is PGI rolling a change like that to live, finding out that actually it borks balance pretty badly and that PGI won't then wait a year to 18 months to change it and that change will be crap and it'll be another 6 months after that to get something useful.

I think you'll find that just a velocity change won't be enough. Not unless it's a big one - at which point you've created other issues. Trades with no real exposure are the trump card. They are why high mounts are so much better than low mounts and why ECM on a sniper is good. Trades are less about heat and cooldown than they are doing more damage than you take.

[MischiefSC]

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

The answer is that you don't make them heat efficient.

So then you make PPCs flat out superior in all long range trades to lasers but mostly worthless at closer range? Can you see how that would affect the gameplay? Like, say, making ERLLs flat out inferior and turning the game into a mix of 800m trades and mad rushes to brawl? We've had that before. At that time you could still brawl with PPCs but the way the game played out was still the same.

Like I said. Happy to play it on the PTS but I trust PGI to make a change on live and then back it out if it's got balance issues about as far as.....

there's really no comparison I can put in there that isn't hugely insulting to someone, because I absolutely don't trust PGI to do that at all in any meaningful way. We've got a decent balance right now and mucking with PPCs (PPFLD energy, no ammo weapon) is a great way to **** it all up.

[Mcgral18]

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

The answer is that you don't make them heat efficient.

Effective at long range, but unable to sustain up close, and less DPS if facehugging stats.

Their spam ability is what I do not like. Not the Poptart era, not the über quirked 9s

[FupDup]

MischiefSC, on 25 January 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

So then you make PPCs flat out superior in all long range trades to lasers but mostly worthless at closer range? Can you see how that would affect the gameplay? Like, say, making ERLLs flat out inferior and turning the game into a mix of 800m trades and mad rushes to brawl? We've had that before. At that time you could still brawl with PPCs but the way the game played out was still the same.

Like I said. Happy to play it on the PTS but I trust PGI to make a change on live and then back it out if it's got balance issues about as far as.....

there's really no comparison I can put in there that isn't hugely insulting to someone, because I absolutely don't trust PGI to do that at all in any meaningful way. We've got a decent balance right now and mucking with PPCs (PPFLD energy, no ammo weapon) is a great way to **** it all up.

ERLLs wouldn't be flat out inferior. Their advantages would remain as such:

• 2 tons lighter
  
• 1 slot smaller
  
• Hitscan is still easier to use at the really extreme ranges than "fast" projectiles (even the superspeed Gauss can be out-sniped by ERLL at 800+ meters)
  
• Better damage per heat ratio, especially if comparing to the ERPPC
  
• Higher damage per tonnage ratio (PPC is 1.43 damage per ton, [ER]LL is 1.8 damage per ton)
  
• Longer maximum range than regular PPCs
  
• Depending on what other changes happen, they may also have a faster cooldown than PPCs (assuming PPC cooldown nerf)
  
• No minimum range (compared to regular PPC)

PPC advantages in this scenario:

• More damage concentration ( cuz PPFLD)
  
• Reduced exposure time (cuz PPFLD)
  
• EMP effect against ECM
  
• If using the ERPPC, you have a longer maximum potential range (although as said above, projectile weapons don't always work as well at their listed ranges as hitscan guns do)

So, the ERLL would remain as a sort of "generalist" or multi-role weapon that works decently in most situations compared to Peeps, while Peeps would be specialized for one bracket and then become weaker if they get taken out of their "sweet spot" range.

Edited by FupDup, 25 January 2016 - 12:09 PM.

[Yosharian]

People criticizing the clan builds/play need to step up and do better, maybe? At least the people involved here are trying to gather some data on the situation, even if they are biased as you claim. And they are certainly not poor players, regardless of how you think they played.

[MischiefSC]

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

ERLLs wouldn't be flat out inferior. Their advantages would remain as such:

• 2 tons lighter
  
• 1 slot smaller
  
• Hitscan is still easier to use at the really extreme ranges than "fast" projectiles (even the superspeed Gauss can be out-sniped by ERLL at 800+ meters)
  
• Better damage per heat ratio, especially if comparing to the ERPPC
  
• Higher damage per tonnage ratio (PPC is 1.43 damage per ton, [ER]LL is 1.8 damage per ton)
  
• Longer maximum range than regular PPCs
  
• Depending on what other changes happen, they may also have a faster cooldown than PPCs (assuming PPC cooldown nerf)

PPC advantages in this scenario:

• More damage concentration ( cuz PPFLD)
  
• Reduced exposure time (cuz PPFLD)
  
• EMP effect against ECM
  
• If using the ERPPC, you have a longer maximum potential range (although as said above, projectile weapons don't always work as well at their listed ranges as hitscan guns do)

So, the ERLL would remain as a sort of "generalist" or multi-role weapon that works decently in most situations compared to Peeps, while Peeps would be specialized for one bracket and then become weaker if they get taken out of their "sweet spot" range.

Again, I get the math. I absolutely do.

The problem is that you've got a pretty simple situation here. If I can consistently win trades with you and do my damage in concentrated points then your ERLLs are worthless compared to PPCs or ERPPCs respectively. You're better off going to LLs because to beat me you have to get me in a face-hug so I can't exploit my limited exposure time. The downside of high heat/longer cooldown is that I spend longer in cover. The only way to offset that value is for you to rush me and get around my cover. If I can keep you from digging me out of cover I will flat out win against lasers every time, no question.

Ergo long range laser trades are worthless by comparison because if you're letting me keep in cover you're giving me the win. So you have to rush me, in which case why did you bring ERLLs? Maybe on a 3L ERLL sniper and look for people who aren't trading with PPCs+Gauss/AC5s?

So I go back to PPCs+AC5s and I play the pop-and-shoot meta and try to get 3 hits on your CT before you can get me out of cover. If I do, I win. Even if you get to point blank I'll finish you before you finish me. I don't even need the PPCs at point blank for that.

OR -

PPCs are too hot to consistently win that exchange option.... so nobody takes them anyway because lasers perform better.

Heat is a minimal factor at long range trades. Spending an extra 1 or 2 seconds cooling between shots when we're trading at 800m isn't a big deal especially if ERPPCs have no ammo so missed shots mean nothing. At least with Gauss you've got a lot of embeded costs. PPCs significantly less so.

Like I said. Happy to see it on the PTS. I suspect what you'll find is it's either better than lasers or they are not. They compete directly with lasers for the same hardpoints and for the same roles - either long range or mid range direct fire energy weapon. If it can do the role viably with less exposure (which directly reduces the effectiveness of enemy lasers) then it's a better weapon. If not.... it's not.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MischiefSC, on 25 January 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

Or the EBJ, or even the King Crab?

King Crab can't reliably use them because the cockpit is so far forward and low. Just because a mech has high mounts doesn't mean it can use them well. The Jager is somewhat similar since the cockpit is in the middle of the chest rather than like the Mad Dog. EBJ is ok, but you can only high mount 2 energy and one ballistic which is fairly limiting (they also stick up a lot more than one should be comfortable with).

MischiefSC, on 25 January 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

Right now PPCs are inferior to lasers. Not arguing that I'm trying to find a way to fix it. The point is however that if all other things are equal as in the PPC is just as viable to bring as an ERLL or LPL why are you going to pick the DoT weapon that requires 0.67-1.5 seconds of exposure to use instead of the PPFLD weapon that requires a fraction of a second?

If all things are equal, the DOT weapon has some advantage over the PPFLD weapon (higher alpha, better dps, or something like that). Not to mention, if ghost heat stays in place and ballistics are unaltered, then you have to expose for longer than a fraction of a second to get off both salvos for anything more than 2 PPCs. There has to be a tradeoff in place to ensure that the risk matches the reward for both. The sweet spot isn't something that will automatically be hit, it is something that would take time but it does exist and should be found.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 January 2016 - 12:31 PM.

[Jabilac]

Maybe threads like these would be taken more seriously by a larger group of the player population if they didn't appear every few weeks. Ever since Clans were introduced I've read these threads constantly. "X side is stronger because of these certain set of examples I will introduce." Most of the time the OP doesn't actually want balance they want their side to be stronger because obviously its a balance problem and not the player.

One thing I learned a long time ago was to quit fighting people on their terms and fight on mine. If my mech is better at range I stay away, if its better up close I get closer. Use whatever advantage you can and exploit your opponents weaknesses. Even top tier "comp" players make mistakes or become comfortable with a certain strategy and expect that strategy to win because they are a "comp" player.
C-ERLL is weaker then IS-ERLL but C-LPL is stronger then IS-LPL as is the C-ERSL, C-ERML, C-Streaks and C-SPL. Maybe the next 8v8 battle should just be SPL's.