127 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

cazidin, on 23 February 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

I disagree with a duration nerf for lasers. Remember the 1.3 second Clan ER-ML or the 1.5 second Clan ER-LL? Yeah. People didn't like that. At all.

For the record, that's what they were to begin with, and ironically that's what they still are now. You're thinking of the short lived 2.0 second, more than 1 for Ghost Heat version that was hotfixed soon after its fantastically disastrous debut.

[Onimusha shin]

Wintersdark, on 23 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

What? No, sorry, you're flat out wrong here.

PGI can and does adjust heat, damage, cycle speed, duration, range, and actually every other aspect of lasers except tonnage and slots: The ONLY things for lasers that would remove their ability to work in stock builds correctly.

So, no, there are "literally" many more ways to nerf lasers than heat and duration. This alone renders most of your post rather useless.

And I did say that "I'm not sure if PGI wants to tweak MWO values too far from TT ones." Reason being that most of the other values except cycle speed and duration have their basis from TT values. PGI likely does not want to deviate too much from TT values because of the TT fanbase. Devaluing my post as useless simply because you disagree with my POV? Simply wow!

Wintersdark, on 23 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

Again: What? The AC5 mech can fire and twist instantly, the lasers firing over 1.15s have to remain aimed directly during that 1.15s.

The key advantage of lasers over autocannons here is that lasers are hitscan, don't need to be led. For ages, autocannons and PPC's had a HUGE edge over lasers (to the point that it was the opposite of what you see now, and lasers where the bad ones). This, because you could shoot and twist instantly, dealing all your damage to one hit location.

I'm wondering if you've ever had to brawl or poke with a pure ballistic boat vs an energy boat before. From your argument, it doesn't sound like you've done so in a competitive manner. More likely just hammering away with dakka at an unaware opponent.

ACs require target leading. Which requires more time to judge the leading aim than just snapping off an on-target laser alpha. During that half second you're aiming and firing your ACs THEN twisting away, the lasers have already burnt at least 50-60% of their laser alpha into your CT/ST. And while you're turned away, it can continue to burn away at your CW/ST/arm if you didn't twist properly.

The only reason why PPCs and ACs had that huge edge in the past was because of the projectile velocity speeds being fairly high and synced, which has already been tackled to the point where PPCs are next to useless, prolly worse than flamers atm. Which is stupid that high skill weapons (PPCs & ACs) are being indirectly nerfed because of laser power creep (due to quirks especially).

Wintersdark, on 23 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

Longer durations do nerf lasers, as I've already agreed many times. But they do it at a substantial cost in "fun" - and not "Fun because I love the laser meta and lasers in general", but fun in that (as I've said repeatedly) long burn durations lead to greatly increased friendly fire and other such issues.

In the very first place, player skill and situational awareness SHOULD be raised via increasing the skill floor of using lasers, be it managing burn ON target or burn OFF friendlies.

As I've stated, it also helps raise TTK as well as the viability of an extremely over-tonned weapon class. A simple comparison as follows:

• 23-27 tons to achieve laser alpha of 47dmg from a 2LPL+3ML HBR over a 0.9-1.15s duration (cooling efficiency of 35-42%) works out to be 0.4078 - 0.4787 DPS/ton
  
• 32 tons to achieve 20dmg alpha every 1.66s from a 4 x AC/5 WHM (ammo tonnage not even included!) works out to be 0.3763 DPS/ton (again, excluding ammo tonnage!)

It's fairly obvious that other than a heat advantage, autocannons lose out against laser boats in exposure, damage, tonnage, cycle speed, range (yes, range works against ballistic boats unless velocity is quirked to more than 1500m/s. Even then, they're not hitscan weapons).

I'm fine with laser cooldowns being nerfed which makes more sense realistically speaking but THAT might turn even more people off of lasers and MWO than increased burn durations. Whatever it is to bump up ACs' viability in general, I'll take it.

[Homeskilit]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 23 February 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

@Homeskilit:

I think the point that Quicksilver is trying to make is that the comparison of 1) Death (current isXL) or 2) Survivability (current Std.) is negated if you buff isXL to survive ST loss like cXL.

That means that Std. engines need some more to bring them into viability again.

A moderate durability buff to CT (to reflect their non-fragility) wouldn't be a problem and could still work in tandem with your proposed additional durability to standard structure/armor.

In fact, it would actually drive the distinction between damage builds and tank builds into further contrast (a good thing, if you ask me), and allow for many versatile builds in between.

LFE, if introduced could follow a similar line with slight buffs to durability in both CT and ST to reflect its "not-SO-fragile" standing.

A small buff to CT structure only is actually a really good idea. It even fits in with the idea that you kill a STD engine mech by focusing down the CT, great suggestion!

Edited by Homeskilit, 23 February 2016 - 07:00 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I'm not quite sure why you still insist this is the case, but it isn't true

because it is true.

regardless of whether youre a light mech or an assault, if you carry 6 lasers, youre gonna overheat in the same number of alphastrikes. assaults and lights basically have the same heat brick wall thanks to internal heatsinks being truedubs and external heatsinks being virtually useless.

[Wintersdark]

Onimusha shin, on 23 February 2016 - 06:53 PM, said:

And I did say that "I'm not sure if PGI wants to tweak MWO values too far from TT ones." Reason being that most of the other values except cycle speed and duration have their basis from TT values. PGI likely does not want to deviate too much from TT values because of the TT fanbase. Devaluing my post as useless simply because you disagree with my POV? Simply wow!

No, not because I disagree with your POV.

Read carefully: I agree with your overall POV. You don't need to argue why lasers need to be nerfed or why they're superior to ballistics. I've been around enough, played enough (at all levels, at some time or other), I get it, and I agree.

But PGI has clearly showed they're not afraid to change everything except named autocannon damage (for obvious reasons), tonnage and slots.

There's a bunch of stats with no relation to Tabletop - cycle speed, duration, projectile speed, ppfld vs burst, spread, cof, etc. And even the other stats which are right in Tabletop get tweaked all the time, like damage and heat. See how missile damage has varied over the years, PPC heat has been all over the place, the is ML is still hotter than TT, etc.

Quote

In the very first place, player skill and situational awareness SHOULD be raised via increasing the skill floor of using lasers, be it managing burn ON target or burn OFF friendlies.

Except this game is a lot more than just comp play, and long laser burns make them unusable in close quarters, particularly with other mechs around. Just saying "git gud" isn't an option for the THRONGS of random players... And if it where just their weapons being less effective, that would be one thing, but long burn lasers mean it's their teammates that suffer, not them.

This leads to LESS FUN PLAY. And THAT is a significant problem, even if it helps balance.

Quote

As I've stated, it also helps raise TTK as well as the viability of an extremely over-tonned weapon class. A simple comparison as follows:

• 23-27 tons to achieve laser alpha of 47dmg from a 2LPL+3ML HBR over a 0.9-1.15s duration (cooling efficiency of 35-42%) works out to be 0.4078 - 0.4787 DPS/ton
  
• 32 tons to achieve 20dmg alpha every 1.66s from a 4 x AC/5 WHM (ammo tonnage not even included!) works out to be 0.3763 DPS/ton (again, excluding ammo tonnage!)

It's fairly obvious that other than a heat advantage, autocannons lose out against laser boats in exposure, damage, tonnage, cycle speed, range (yes, range works against ballistic boats unless velocity is quirked to more than 1500m/s. Even then, they're not hitscan weapons).

I'm fine with laser cooldowns being nerfed which makes more sense realistically speaking but THAT might turn even more people off of lasers and MWO than increased burn durations. Whatever it is to bump up ACs' viability in general, I'll take it.

Again, and for the last time: I fully comprehend the current situation.

Increasing cooldowns is a valid way to go, but not the only way. It would make fewer people run pure laser boats, but that's the goal. The upside, though, is that it at least doesn't ruin other unrelated players gameplay experience at the same time.

Please keep in mind, I'm not even talking about the guy firing the lasers here, I'm thinking about his friends.

When they moved the ERLL up to 2s, it was a FF bloodbath. A really serious problem. We saw that in action. Not so much at (at the time) high Elo, but it really was elsewhere, and those people matter too.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

because it is true.

regardless of whether youre a light mech or an assault, if you carry 6 lasers, youre gonna overheat in the same number of alphastrikes. assaults and lights basically have the same heat brick wall thanks to internal heatsinks being truedubs and external heatsinks being virtually useless.

That's not entirely accurate.

Bigger mechs can carry more heatsinks... Lights do not carry the same load (and some are forced upon sub-250 based engines to boot - more poordubs than Trudubs).

[Khobai]

Quote

Bigger mechs can carry more heatsinks.

which arnt truedubs. and are basically useless.

all heatsinks should be the same. its totally dumb having internal heatsinks be worth more than external ones.

even if all heatsinks are 1.7 thats better than the current 2.0 internal and 1.4 external ridiculousness we have now

Quote

and some are forced upon sub-250 based engines to boot

ok yeah ill give you that the 20-30 tonners which hardly anyone uses are disadvantaged

but I was talking mostly about the 35 tonners that everyone who pays lights actually uses...

Edited by Khobai, 23 February 2016 - 07:18 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Homeskilit, on 23 February 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

A small buff to CT structure only is actually a really good idea. It even fits in with the idea that you kill a STD engine mech by focusing down the CT, great suggestion!

Glad you like it!

The fact that Std. engines are only in the CT makes it only logical that the durability buff they receive is also only in the CT.

As I said, this keeps the Std. engine viable while driving further contrast; that means more meaningful choices.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

because it is true.

Maybe in puglandia, but in coordinated play this is not the case if a team properly supports their assaults.

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

which arnt truedubs. and are basically useless.

Hyperbole, pure and simple.

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

but I was talking mostly about the 35 tonners that everyone who pays lights actually uses...

Cheetah is actually 30 tons.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 February 2016 - 08:39 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

...
even if all heatsinks are 1.7 thats better than the current 2.0 internal and 1.4 external ridiculousness we have now

Making internal dubs weaker would poop on mechs that can't afford to boat the snot out of Dubs.

Verdict: Lolno

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 07:14 PM, said:

ok yeah ill give you that the 20-30 tonners which hardly anyone uses are disadvantaged

but I was talking mostly about the 35 tonners that everyone who pays lights actually uses...

The Hankyu is 30 tons....but other than that 35 tonners are certainly the Golden Master Race due to the BT construction rules (that, and that the majority of stock 20-30 tonners are trash so their customized builds often inherit the trash).

[Khobai]

Quote

Making internal dubs weaker would poop on mechs that can't afford to boat the snot out of Dubs.

you mean it would make assaults not suck? sounds good to me.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 23 February 2016 - 09:52 PM, said:

you mean it would make assaults not suck? sounds good to me.

...At the cost of making a relatively unpopular class even less popular.

[Onimusha shin]

Wintersdark, on 23 February 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

**blah blah blah**

Please keep in mind, I'm not even talking about the guy firing the lasers here, I'm thinking about his friends.

When they moved the ERLL up to 2s, it was a FF bloodbath. A really serious problem. We saw that in action. Not so much at (at the time) high Elo, but it really was elsewhere, and those people matter too.

Great, you're making more sense now. And lets agree to disagree then. I feel that lasers are way too easy in their current state where regular lasers burn for relatively short durations compared to their heavier tonnage pulse counterparts. That in itself is already a significant imbalance.

And IMO for what PGI is willing to change (and you must admit they're terribly reluctant to change ANYTHING of late wrt weapon balance, with flamers being the ONLY real change of late), my stand is they're not willing to deviate too far from TT values that were translated into MWO and tweaked. Until they prove me otherwise, my POV remains unchanged.

And holding lasers on target isn't something that should be restricted to comp play skill levels. Lasers should not be able to excel in CQB at all, with the exception of the small lasers class. Yet they can easily hold their ground against short-range brawling specialists in addition to IS structure quirks.

Two second lasers back when Clans dropped were new and people QQ'ed because they didn't want to get used to the skill level. Even now, people still make FF mistakes with lasers and all sorts of other weapons. Why should lasers be less damaging than the other weapon classes which are mostly PPFLD (ballistics and SRMs)?

As for reducing FF incidents, I personally feel that allow players to zoom in on our minimaps (MW Academy allows for it, why not real matches?) would help most players' situational awareness. Some people are plain dumb and bad anyway and they shouldn't be the basis for balancing games.

T2-T3 skill levels should be the basis for balancing our weapon gameplays IMHO.

Edited by Onimusha shin, 23 February 2016 - 11:29 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

...At the cost of making a relatively unpopular class even less popular.

so make them more popular. just dont do it at the expense of assaults.

ive already suggested multiple ways of making lights more popular...

add role warfare elements that make light mechs more crucial to the game without needing to make them as good at combat as assaults; which they shouldnt be.

and add ticket based respawns where when you die you lose tickets equal to the tonnage of the piloted mech. That would make lights cost significantly less than assaults. And that combined with enhanced role warfare would make them worth taking.

Edited by Khobai, 24 February 2016 - 11:05 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 24 February 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

so make them more popular. just dont do it at the expense of assaults.

You realize the problem with this right? Making any class better, generally impacts the usage of the other classes because usage is finite...

Khobai, on 24 February 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

add role warfare elements that make light mechs more crucial to the game without needing to make them as good at combat as assaults; which they shouldnt be.

I feel like some people throw out role warfare like it is some magical fix all without realizing that role warfare has to have some effect on damage/combat. Either way you are enhancing damage, the only difference is how you apply it (whether it be lock-based gimmick damage or your own weapons). Lights currently have more trouble applying it than assaults, at least when you aren't in the steering wheel underhive so I'm not sure why you keep insisting this isn't the case. Yes, lights (and to some extent, mediums) thrive in an environment that is uncoordinated, they have since the MW4 days (ask some people that were around for the ninja SCat/Ryo days), but the more coordinated a team is, the more cautious a light has to play. That isn't to say an Assault isn't cautious either, but not to the level lights are.

[jaxjace]

Mystere, on 22 February 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

Why even waste time further changing the stand-in Clan ACs? Just remove them all.

Because they wont give me full price back for all the ones I did buy.

[Homeskilit]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 February 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

I feel like some people throw out role warfare like it is some magical fix all without realizing that role warfare has to have some effect on damage/combat. Either way you are enhancing damage, the only difference is how you apply it (whether it be lock-based gimmick damage or your own weapons). Lights currently have more trouble applying it than assaults, at least when you aren't in the steering wheel underhive so I'm not sure why you keep insisting this isn't the case. Yes, lights (and to some extent, mediums) thrive in an environment that is uncoordinated, they have since the MW4 days (ask some people that were around for the ninja SCat/Ryo days), but the more coordinated a team is, the more cautious a light has to play. That isn't to say an Assault isn't cautious either, but not to the level lights are.

Also the fact that since everyone shares targeting data scouting without an ECM is near impossible.

Edited by Homeskilit, 24 February 2016 - 06:19 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Homeskilit, on 24 February 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

Also the fact that since everyone shares targeting data scouting without an ECM is near impossible.

This is a major thing that limits roles in MWO. The automatic C3 is a terrible mechanic.

I understand that PGI probably thought not sharing info was ridiculous for the 31st century, considering our computers of today; but as a gameplay mechanic, it completely undermines meaningful IW equipment.

Every 'Mech should only be able to se its own radar scans, not everyone's.

Then we can implement C3 master/slave and Active/Passive sensors. Since everyone would want to take advantage of C3 and bring a slave (or most, anyway) that would alter the tonnage usage for pretty much every 'Mech.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Homeskilit, on 24 February 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

Also the fact that since everyone shares targeting data scouting without an ECM is near impossible.

Scouting isn't solely reliant on radar, it is more often reliant on visuals than anything else and this will always be the case unless radar is not restricted to LOS and/or some sort of fog of war is implemented.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 24 February 2016 - 06:53 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 February 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

Scouting isn't solely reliant on radar, it is more often reliant on visuals than anything else and this will always be the case unless radar is not restricted to LOS and/or some sort of fog of war is implemented.

That's completely right. Again, you guys aren't really at odds with each other.

Implementing a fog of war (i.e., removing the auto-C3) would require further use of visual scouting and accentuate its importance.

But, in addition to that, it would also allow the introduction of more meaningful IW equipment: sensor suites, Active/Passive modes, more viable BAP/CAP.

See the post below for a more fleshed out IW model based on checks and balances:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5034210