303 replies to this topic

[Tordin]

Elizander, on 23 August 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

The spread on SRMs were too tight already. I didn't feel the need to get artemis on them most of the time. I do think that SRM4s will still be fine without it and you'd have to facehug with SRM6s if you don't have Artemis.

Hmm, alright. You might be right, they are SHORT range missiles after all, can deal with it I tested the spread on srm 6 without artemis with my Cyclops yesterday. I've seen worse spread yeah. Wonder how MRM or murms will fare in this game sometime..
Would indeed force more facesmashing and leghumping, but then again the surms are the fiercest when doing that.

Came to think of it....the LRMS. Now, the LRM are the least thing to get a spread increase. They shouldnt like, AT ALL get more nerfed.
If people want that, I call em out as vile, vicious anti lurm trolls who cant adapt against them And if PGI listens to the "great ideas" by zealous l33ts, trolls and whiners then nerfing lurms without a serious trade-in will be the final nail in the coffing for me. I might not take the handling of balancing serious anymore...

[obesious]

one mw opinion.... i believe more time building maps would be beneficial to player base and pgi.Adding more to mini map/hud seems like a good idea until you think back to your first public match.We need to add to our player base and complicating a game is not going to help.What will we gain if these changes are implimented? more overheat and less alpha strikes.In time we will learn to play with the new heat values but why should we? I believe it is fairly balanced and playable as is and these are changes we do not need.It also does not feel right playing with the changes.It feels weird.Basically with these changes we will learn heat management and chain fire as a rule and not an option for playstyle. ....Im trying to be openminded and have been happy with changes in the past but this one scares me.I say drop it.Too much time spent on drifting away from the source material we all love from mwo....Thanks

[Wintersdark]

Talos7, on 23 August 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:

I noticed a few people complaining about small 'mechs having too much energy vs larger 'mechs and assaults being bottle-necked with all their heavy weaponry.
Just a thought:
The energy pool could to be adjusted per 'mech class/ton and perhaps have an increase based upon its engine size as well.
For the sake of argument say a light has 20 energy, a med has 25, heavy 30, assault 35-ish energy points to draw from as a base pool. Then give the 'mech a small amount of extra energy based upon the size of the engine installed over and above the chassis stock rated engine per weight class.
This way a Jenner running a 295xl (245 stock?) might come out with a energy pool of 23-ish points. An Atlas running 325 (stock of 300) would also add a few points to its pool and end up with 39 or so points. But the Cataphract running its stock 280 engine would remain at the Heavy class pool of 30. Not sure if a smaller engine would result in a penalty to the energy pool, but it would definitely hinder high alpha high tonnage weapon builds.

Everyone having a fixed energy pool doesn't limit Assaults vs. lighter mechs. It doesn't. It limits your alpha (if you choose to) but it doesn't limit your damage output. My KDK-1 with Gauss+2LPL+4ERML for example had no problem firing everything; you just don't alpha strike everything.

Basically, any build that works on live still works just fine, HEAT caps damage output, not energy, and ED doesn't add any heat if you don't overdraw.

Jack Shayu Walker, on 23 August 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

I guess I would say this whole proposed change just irritates me because I built my mechs around ghost heat to be fun, effective, and distinctly non-meta. Then power draw comes through, and shafts all my non-meta builds that worked, and are forcing me to return to meta mechs that have now been gimped into supposed "fairness".

My single PPC shadowcat can't keep the damage up due to PPC cooldown increases (4.5 sec was fine, 5.25 is too much). My UAC/10, 6x cERSL Nova has lost all of it's heat effeciency so I might as well just boat lasers, and my double PPC summoner can no longer out-brawl other snipers, might as well just switch to gauss + PPC.

Jack Shayu Walker, on 23 August 2016 - 11:27 PM, said:

Lol, you don't need to be sorry. It works great on live, believe it or not. I drop with it in tier 1 quickplay all the time (pull between 400-500 dmg average). My problem is that this PTS was supposed to be friendly to mixed builds like mine, discouraging high damage, sync'd weapon alphas. It hasn't been friendly in my experience thus far, and I feel like mechs that use PPCs without boating them are being punished for using the weapon in a way that was never overpowered to begin with.

Oh and if you want the write up on "what I'm trying to accomplish with my build" here's a link to it on mechspecs: https://www.mechspec...srm4-ecm.10695/

Consider, please, that your problems are with PPC's in the current test being underpowered, not that the system is broken. They absolutely did overnerf PPC's; the cooldown is simply a bit too long now and ought to be dialed back a bit.

ERPPC's in particular are right broken, given 10 effective damage for 15 heat and 15 draw. Yikes. Awful.

That's a weapon stat problem, though, not a systemic problem.

Kurbeks, on 24 August 2016 - 12:18 AM, said:

So yes, let's nerf AC20 and SRMs even more, cause Brawling was so OP!

Thanx at least for PPC and gauss adjustments. Lasres also need work

Brawling is alive and well. I list the builds I've fairly thoroughly tested in my thread here and you'll note there are LOTS of brawling builds there. Brawling is extremely effective.

[DrxAbstract]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

Brawling is extremely effective.

Atlas uses 'Brawl', it's super effective!

[MovinTarget]

I get what they are trying to do here and its not fair to simplify the problem overmuch. Its not just about boating one weapon, its about boating a bunch of weapons that may or may not be the same and may or may not be a REALLY high dmg alpha.

The fact that we have to translate a 10 second TT "turn" into real time and keep the Lore-lubbers and the FPS players all happy doesn't help.

The fact is *many* of us have gotten fat-n-happy on a high alpha meta-diet so of course anything that tries to starve us off of this is going to be hard to take.

Just remember that if everything gets nerfed (yes, fairly and evenly need to be considered), its not truly a nerf because everyone is at a disadvantage.

My primary concern is to ensure that Bigger mechs are not so gimped by heat restrictions because they can carry more and bigger guns while smaller mechs can still carry almost the exact same loadout as now (30dmg or less) and be less affected so that it feels that things have been unevenly nerfed.

Most of my test has been concentrated on heavies and assaults, but I aim to play with various lights and mediums next...

[Wintersdark]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 24 August 2016 - 06:54 AM, said:

If they fix the cooldown on cERPPCs I'll be willing to give the rest of ED a chance, but I can only imagine it's also shafting the non-boating use of other weapons as well. I don't play with AC5's for instance, but they look like they've had the mess beatin' out of them by this balance change.

Ultimately I think that if boating is causing a weapon to be too powerful in the ED system it needs to have its boating potential directly nerfed through some kind of an energy draw value increase. The weapon's other values (namely it's fire rate) should not be changed to balance boats. That ruins the weapon for people who don't boat it.

Boating doesn't. Again, check the builds I've tested here, there's very little boating and I've been pulling VERY strong results from all of them, often against boated builds. There's a lot of BS in these threads, largely from people who haven't actually tried things and are just dreaming stuff up from what they've read.

(U)AC2, (U)AC5 (IS and Clan) are both solid weapon that, in 1 or 2, pair just fine with lasers or SRM's without any issue at all.

(U)AC10's are also fine, but once you get 2 UAC10's clan side it's harder to pair them with another weapon (or even more UAC10's!!) but that's due to pushing 40 damage in less than a second. Draws hard. However, mechs at this point that can mount multiple 10's and other weapons (we're now talking large assaults) can run LBX10's effortlessly. So this DOES mean that a 2UAC10+2LPL build doesn't work well... But a 2LBX10+2LPL build works great. Yes, you get lower damage output. That's kind of the point.

AC10's work just fine with lasers and whatnot too.

There's no advantage to boating over mixing. My builds linked above prove that very consistently.

Tordin, on 24 August 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

Hmm, alright. You might be right, they are SHORT range missiles after all, can deal with it I tested the spread on srm 6 without artemis with my Cyclops yesterday. I've seen worse spread yeah. Wonder how MRM or murms will fare in this game sometime..
Would indeed force more facesmashing and leghumping, but then again the surms are the fiercest when doing that.

Came to think of it....the LRMS. Now, the LRM are the least thing to get a spread increase. They shouldnt like, AT ALL get more nerfed.
If people want that, I call em out as vile, vicious anti lurm trolls who cant adapt against them And if PGI listens to the "great ideas" by zealous l33ts, trolls and whiners then nerfing lurms without a serious trade-in will be the final nail in the coffing for me. I might not take the handling of balancing serious anymore...

My LRM35/5CERSL Mad Dog was massively buffed by Energy Draw. It's noticably better than live. LRM's in general, while EXTREMELY unreliable in 4v4 PTS situations, are significantly better under Energy Draw.

DrxAbstract, on 24 August 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

Atlas uses 'Brawl', it's super effective!

It is indeed, though, in all seriousness. AS7's are not hurting at all, and for the DDC electing to go to 2xLBX10 instead of AC20 is actually a very valid choice now - cooler running, higher DPS, you've always got a weapon to fire.

You DON'T want to alpha AC20+SRM's, but you can twist past and fire one, then twist back past and fire the other, never stopping twisting and it's very cool and quite potent. Remember, your opponents are burning hard alphas either.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

To be fair there are things to like about this new system (I do think the increased cool down times are a step in the right direction ), but not everything is superior to the current Ghost Heat, which while flawed is at least the flawed system we are used to.

There are also some solid ideas (IMHO) in this thread.

My 2 cents...

-some have mentioned the energy draw cap should be based on Mech size and/or engine size. While Engine size would make more sense (logically basing power output on the size of the power plant...engine) it would likely make IS running standard engines even more outgunned. So I do prefer it on Mech Size.

I mean all engine sizes probably shouldn't take up the same amount critical slots as is, but they do. So unless we want to make bigger engines take up more critical slots, making energy available to a mech based on mech tonnage is probably the way to go. If they wanted to make some tweaks between Clan engines and IS that could be possible as well. If they gave IS engines even a slightly better power output it could make up for the whole lose a side torso and you die XL engine thing on IS or maybe giving the IS standard a boost in energy output (makes your mech really slow but with more energy and a bit more survivable). Would take IS mech building to a whole different level as trade-offs for engines get reevaluated.

An energy cap based on size would also reward assaults... with their being able to alpha higher without heat penalty vs lights. Which probably is what it should be. I mean a 100 toner should be able to alpha more than a light without penalty. C'mon. Lights bringing 6 srm 6's and just being able to use them quickly by just putting them in 2 weapon groups (to avoid ghost heat) needs to become a thing of the past. It fun for a giggle to run a 60 ton mad dog that can do 97 damage in 2 quick mouse clicks...and not shut down or explode, but again c'mon... Shouldn't be possible to do that.

-on brawling: Personally I think using brawling weapons at short range should have by far the most energy efficiency. If you manage to get your 100 ton mech to within 270 meters, you should wreck. Make sure medium and light pilots have fear in our hearts to see Assaults appear right in our face. At that distance make it the speed and maneuverably of smaller mechs vs. the raw power of heavier mechs. Don't make it a level playing field in that situation on penalty-free damage output. Reward the gutsy heavy and assault pilots who can get in close. We don't want all engagements to be just longer duration "poke-fests" (alpha from 400+ meters and hide). Make brawling builds worth the risk for the bigger, slower mechs.

Overall energy draw should be based on damage caused and how far out you can push that damage level (range). Also, how pinpoint that damage is. I am all for making LBX's viable.

Also, if the weapon requires less skill like lasers do (I love lasers, but they don't require leading a moving target and are pinpoint) or lock-on weapons like lrms and streaks (missle damage, plus the energy for targeting systems) they could require a bit more energy to use that the ones that require more pilot skill and might miss more.

[Gas Guzzler]

DrxAbstract, on 23 August 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

So... nothing to add? Color me surprised.

It should also be noted that C Mplas are essentially IS Lplas, and you dont typically see more than 2-3 of those per respective IS build, do you? Some persistent pre-conceived notions about Clan Lasers should be dispelled when approaching the task of building Clan laser vomits, such as being able to boat 7-9 IS Mplas meaning you can boat 7-9 Clan Mplas - You can't. Obviously you dont need many to match/exceed IS laser vomit output or hit the ED cap, and C Mlas will still be more effective for pairing due to being half the weight. Just depends on the player.

I just don't believe you that Energy Draw will magically make cMPLs more viable.

[Just Another Bad Robot Game]

Willothius, on 24 August 2016 - 03:44 AM, said:

To everyone shouting "it's too complex, convoluted, and noobunfriendly"; FFS there is NO possible way it's MORE complex or convoluted than ghost heat is now!! You ALREADY have to calculate, ****, or even use scripted trigger commands if you want to optimize your playing! How is firing 12 ER SLs instant death when 6 by 6 is less than 50% heat? The difference in 0,5 sec or 0,49 sec causes more than 50% increase in heat is noobfriendlier than "bar empty + keep shooting = heat penalty"?

People are just blind sighted by the bigger amount of numbers in PTS2, but that doesn't invalidate the basic principle: Energy Draw is way better than current ghost heat.

For God's sake, PGI finally trying to do something that actually makes sense (Incl. several PTS iterations!) and they STILL get bashed by people who PREFER ghost heat??? Don't listen to them PGI, please!

Wait what? All you need to know for ghost heat is what number of weapons trigger it.

5 IS LPL = BAD
3 IS LPL, then 2 = GOOD

That's literally all there is to it. All this talk of calculations and macros is just potato babble

All I really wanted was ghost heat 2.0 where you had to split mixed-weapon alphas by a half second interval. This would have done its job in prolonging fights, but not to an obnoxious amount like PGI is pushing for at the moment.

Edited by Just Another Bad Robot Game, 24 August 2016 - 08:55 AM.

[X T R E M E]

Just Another Bad Robot Game, on 24 August 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

5 IS LPL = BAD
3 IS LPL, then 2 = GOOD

You begun to play now. [Member Since 11 Jun 2016]
What do you know of mwo?

The alpha must be managed in relation to the weight.
So is diversity among the mech.

Today a Raven2x can make an alpha of 3 Large Laser.
Why an Atlas should not do an good alpha?
I HOPE YOU ARE JOKING.

Do you know why?
Why is heavy 100 tons and be able to do it.

What is your favorite weapon?
Guess: LRM! right?

Edited by XtremeAlex, 24 August 2016 - 09:21 AM.

[Steel Raven]

Colonel ONeill, on 24 August 2016 - 05:11 AM, said:

upping the armor would increase TTK as well.

BOOM! An easy solution!

[X T R E M E]

Steel Raven, on 24 August 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

BOOM! An easy solution!

These developers do not like the easy option.
Do not say it around!

The patches statements, came out exactly when they did this:
http://mwomercs.com/...5293-dropdecks/
All coincidence?

Edited by XtremeAlex, 24 August 2016 - 09:33 AM.

[Merit Lef]

First things first. These small adjustments as the week moves on is a pattern I hope PGI will continue to apply to all PTS. And thank you for reading the forms.

Now about the PPC. I'm fine with the new change IF! also the velocity is increased. If you can only fire once in 5.25 sec with higher heat and draw then allow our shots to count. Without velocity quirks its near impossible to land any hits on a moving target at range (opposite of its role with new change). This is a concern because when an opponent closes their range to capitalize on DPS your slow to fire PPD PPC will lose all battles at close range. AGAIN I'm fine with that IF and only IF my shots at range can actually hit their mark. Therfore increase velocity, and I can stand a chance when it enters into brawling.

[JC Daxion]

Jman5, on 23 August 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

I like that you're upping the heat penalty from 0.5 to 1. My concern is that these new penalties for autocannons make it difficult for players to mentally add up what sort of heat penalty they will accrue.

What am i missing.. Go over 10 power, get 10 heat.. How is this hard to add?

[MovinTarget]

Merit Lef, on 24 August 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

its near impossible to land any hits on a moving target at range

Well, I certainly hope so!!!

[JC Daxion]

banana peel, on 23 August 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

You guys HAVE to just stop messing around with gauss. Why the hell have you removed the chargeup in the first place? And can you, please, explain stupid me, how is the 1-heat weapon "consumps" the most amount of heat in the game? I know, you try to balance and stuff, but you must keep things at least remotely real.

Bring back the charge, reduce cooldown, restrict from firing more than one at a time - and here is your desired alphanerf.

You do realize if you fire just one, it is basically no heat right? None of these changes add heat unless you go over power..




Though i do have to laugh.. this system fits with the way i play the game.. Multiple weapon systems fired separately,. Turning the game into more of a DPS, verse alpha strike.. I guess if you loved alpha strike warrior it is not for you, for those that hated it, it is much better.

Very few of my mechs have even had play style changed which is ironic, when re-size hit, i only had one mech in 70 that actually grew more than a few %

Edited by JC Daxion, 24 August 2016 - 10:05 AM.

[MovinTarget]

If you are in the PTS right now, send me a friends request, we can't even get 4 v 4 so maybe 2v2?

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

To be fair there are things to like about this new system (I do think the increased cool down times are a step in the right direction ), but not everything is superior to the current Ghost Heat, which while flawed is at least the flawed system we are used to.

The cooldown timers are in the right direction, it helps differentiate heavy hitting, primarily long range weapons from med/short range weapons. So now a player who wants to play sniper and equip 2ERPPC/2GR, 2ERPPC/GR, etc will have to consider the implications when the fight moves to closer range. Oh no, I left my pistol and my knife in my locker.

Will we see actual heat penalties for movement/agility other than the internal structure damage that happens @ 100%+? Not holding my breath

[Obelus]

Energy draw looks to be another mistake like ghost heat.

You want balance and longer TTK then focus on weapon recharge rates, weapon heat rates, and mech heat capacity.

Start there first.

If that is not enough you've got other mechanics to play with - range, aoe vs pinpoint, ammo per ton, etc...

Please stop over-complicating things. Do not add an unnecessary heat mechanic in place on another unnecessary heat mechanic.

Edited by Obelus, 24 August 2016 - 10:52 AM.

[Willothius]

Just Another Bad Robot Game, on 24 August 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

Wait what? All you need to know for ghost heat is what number of weapons trigger it.

5 IS LPL = BAD
3 IS LPL, then 2 = GOOD

That's literally all there is to it. All this talk of calculations and macros is just potato babble

Well also 2 C ERLL + 6 C ERSL = good, but 2 C ERML + 6C ERSL = bad.. wait, what?
And how about 1 AC20 = good, 2 AC20 = bad unless you wait >0.5 sec between shots. Wait, what?

And how about getting MORE heat penalty when firing a few LRM5 + 1 bigger LRM, then when firing MULTIPLE bigger LRMs. what, what-the-f***ing-what now?

Firing 5 SRM2 + 4 SRM4 = fine, but 1 SRM6 + 4 SRM4 = nope?? Help me!

Well, the 12C ERSL Nova MUST make sense right? Alpha = death. Phew, that makes sense... but wait, if I fire with 0,5 sec pause between 2x6 lasers, I'm fine!! OH SH*T I FIRED ONLY 0,4 SECONDS APART, I EXPLODED, MATH IS HARD, PLZ KILL ME AND END THIS HORROR!!

Edited by Willothius, 24 August 2016 - 10:58 AM.