303 replies to this topic

[Jack Shayu Walker]

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

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.

I have considered that and I'm agreeing completely. It's not the power draw system itself that I have a problem with, it's the other balancing changes surrounding it on this PTS.

My gripes are as follows:

-PPCs have been overnerfed with respect to cooldown.
-AC/5s similarly received a cooldown nerf in response to their boating efficiency. I havn't tested them on the PTS as I'm not a fan of AC5s, but this seems distinctly unfair to non-boat AC5 mechs, especially considering a single AC5 now has less DPS than a single AC2.
-Clan auto cannons draw energy up front instead of per pellet.
-Lasers draw energy upfront rather than drawing energy over the duration of their burn.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 24 August 2016 - 11:20 AM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

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

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.

I would have to directly contest you on this point. As a player with a lot of experience with PPCs, I do not have trouble landing hits on moving targets at range. Once you get the feel for it -I know it can take a bit of time- it is something you can achieve with consistency.

With that in mind, I would really hate to see a velocity increase be exchanged for a larger cooldown. That just makes the PPC behave more like a gauss rifle and takes away weapon variety.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

PGI really needs to just try changing to a hard heat cap of 30, turn off power draw and keep the cooldown nerfs in the PTS and see if that changes to a lower time to kill and smaller alpha strikes, we already have true DHS in PTS, get ride of the extra capacity. Stop trying to reinvent the original heat scale from TT and just try what was working before DHS were added.

[Lightfoot]

As I mentioned, I couldn't get the Clan ERPPCs to score correct damage on the Test Server PUG matches most of the time. On the Testing Grounds maps they worked fine though. My mechs were all running BAP and Target Info Gathering as well.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Source Mystic, on 24 August 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

If clan er ppc hit in the center torso you get 15 damage 10 center + 2.5 LT +2.5 RT but if you fire at a leg you only get 10 the other 5 disappears into the void.

I believe 2.5 of it is actually supposed to transfer to the adjacent side torso.

[Greenburg Godzillas]

If the whole goal of this is to prevent Alpha strikes, just remove the Alpha strike selector button. Make chain fire mandatory. Then your Alpha consist of smashing mouse button A and Mouse button B at the same time (or a couple more if you have a gaming mouse). I know Alpha strikes have been in the computer games since the beginning, but I think it beats both Ghost Heat and Power Draw in simplicity and still achieves the result.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Source Mystic, on 24 August 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

LT = LEFT TORSO RT = RIGHT TORSO ...... WAS THAT NOT Clear ?

Yes it was clear. LET ME BE CLEAR THEN.

A Left Leg hit is supposed to transfer to 2.5 damage to the Left Torso.

A Right Leg hit is supposed to transfer to 2.5 damage to the Right Torso.

GET MY MEANING Now?

[Kaptain]

Source Mystic, on 24 August 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

LT = LEFT TORSO RT = RIGHT TORSO ...... WAS THAT NOT Clear ?

He was saying the hit to the leg is supposed to transfer 2.5 to the side torso it's connected with. IS THAT NOT CLEAR?

[Just Another Bad Robot Game]

XtremeAlex, on 24 August 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

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

Are you one of those people who need to play a computer game for 4 years before you get mildly good at it?

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Source Mystic, on 24 August 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

Add 50% velocity er ppc and ppc then it will start to look like balance until then under your new system pulse lasers and dakka will reign supreme just like before this rebalance heat 2.0 So what is the point of all this seriously.

Don't add 50% velocity, return the cooldown to normal. The PPC doesn't need to just be a bad (hot) gauss rifle.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Source Mystic, on 24 August 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Clan er ppc should get a longer cool-down because they get 30 damage for firing 2 er ppc for way less heat. Inner sphere ppc and er ppc. should have less of a cool-down. Add 50% velocity to all er ppc and ppc. Then it will start to look like balance.

The 5 extra SPLASH damage on clan ERPPCs is a joke. It doesn't have nearly as much value as the main 10 damage, and it's certainly not worth a larger cooldown. I would be in favor of reducing the IS ERPPC's heat by a couple of points (to 13 heat) and leaving the clan ERPPC at 15, but all PPCs need a reduction back to the 4.5s cooldown.

A 50% velocity buff is too much, though I'm fine if PGI wants to fine tune it a little more than they already have. I'm not opposed to another 10% increase, but that's more of an ease of use change than a buff. I can aim the ERPPC's just fine as is.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 24 August 2016 - 01:39 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Source Mystic, on 24 August 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Clan er ppc should get a longer cool-down because they get 30 damage for firing 2 er ppc for way less heat. Inner sphere ppc and er ppc. should have less of a cool-down. Add 50% velocity to all er ppc and ppc. Then it will start to look like balance.

Not only this but they have made cool down modules useless 5% for a fully upgraded cool-down So if i use my cool-down module on my er ppc my cool-down becomes 4.98 instead of 5.25 wow I will never use cool down modules again Range is a far better option on anything than a 5 % cool-down. Good job pgi what else can you make useless.

Wat? Clan ERPPC's are 15 heat, and often LESS than 15 damage, but even in the best case scenario they're only 10 damage where you wanted it.

IS PPC's are 1:1 targetted damage:heat.

Still, I'd be OK with Clan ERPPC's keeping the long cooldown IF they were moved to 15 PPFLD damage (which is, incidentally, what the weapon is supposed to have); even if this came alongside a further draw increase. Then it would be worth using one or maybe two as energy Gauss Rifles; but they'd be totally unboatable.

PPC's and ERPPC's, however, they need reduced cooldowns. That Cooldown+draw was too much, and given the inherent PPC disadvantages, higher draw/lower cooldown leads to more useful PPC's while also discouraging boating.

Jack Shayu Walker, on 24 August 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

The 5 extra SPLASH damage on clan ERPPCs is a joke. It doesn't have nearly as much value as the main 10 damage, and it's certainly not worth a larger cooldown. I would be in favor of reducing the IS ERPPC's heat by a couple of points (to 13 heat) and leaving the clan ERPPC at 15, but all PPCs need a reduction back to the 4.5s cooldown.

A 50% velocity buff is too much, though I'm fine if PGI wants to fine tune it a little more than they already have. I'm not opposed to another 10% increase, but that's more of an ease of use change than a buff. I can aim the ERPPC's just fine as is.

This, really.

[Keyman1848]

The last thing we need is another more complicated version of Ghost heat. This is not a step forward its a step backward.

[Kmieciu]

Source Mystic, on 24 August 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

So really no laser values are changing .

I think you missed the big buff to C-ERLL and C-MPL as well as a big increase in C-DHS capacity.
C-LPL got shorter max range, so the C-ERLL will be the best option for long range.

Edited by Kmieciu, 24 August 2016 - 02:01 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

Bud Crue, on 23 August 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

So they say above that "we've received a lot of feedback specifically calling for lower Energy Consumption values for close-range, brawl-focused weaponry".

Yet in response to that feedback, all the weapons weere increased in energy consumption and heat.

Whu?

That's because the cry babies hated their alpha warriorness being made very slightly more difficult, P.G.I did the right thing and totally ignored a deliberate attempt to sabotage the whole point of Energy Draw

[Mystere]

PyckenZot, on 24 August 2016 - 05:37 AM, said:

Thing is, alpha strikes are a part of battletech and nothing wrong with them. But they should hurt you for doing one.

Ahem! Actually, constant alpha strikes as the primary firing pattern are not.

[ThatGuy539]

Signal27, on 23 August 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

A little troll that lives in the back of my head whispers that, yes, that would be suitable compensation for the blatant Mary-Sue factions and the rules that guided them on the tabletop, introduced to BattleTech players all those years ago.

But I'll admit I'm probably in the minority of old-school BattleTech players that didn't actually like the introduction of Clan technologies to the game. I would've been okay with just the Clan faction lore alone if the developers of the board game didn't give them blatantly superior technology.

I agree. Although they did bring in that part of Clan lore where they fought using smaller groups of mechs compared to the IS....which helped to even the odds. They could have implemented that here too in FW, but in the standard games it wouldn't be fun or fair, so I don't see that they had much of a choice but to try and even out the odds.

[DrxAbstract]

Gas Guzzler, on 24 August 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

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

Well depending on your origins and beliefs, programming is much like magic!

[operatorZ]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

You have weapon groups; use them.

yeah but my mouse only has two buttons........

[Pihoqahiak]

Kmieciu, on 24 August 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

I think you missed the big buff to C-ERLL and C-MPL as well as a big increase in C-DHS capacity.
C-LPL got shorter max range, so the C-ERLL will be the best option for long range.

At higher levels of play, ERLLs, like LRMs, are not very effective weapons overall. They spread their damage against skilled opponents due to their long duration and easily give away your position when trading/sniping.