27 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

Ok, we all know that nerfs happen, and many people get very angry over them, but for the sake of balance, they often need to be done.

So instead of adding negative quirks to certain mechs, or boosting up others even more to compete with said top performing mechs.. (and with power draw, and we know another round of quirks/balance coming) I had this idea..



Limit what weapon modules you can use on certain mechs. To me this could be a way to nerf, But not really nerf,, You are just no longer buffing something that doesn't need a buff in the first place.

Maybe some mechs would have a whole group of modules, Like say all energy/missile/ballistics, Or others would just have certain modules excluded, like No UAC-20 or or Maybe No gauss range, Or what ever it may happen to be.

basically it is a way, to make a top performing mech, in a certain meta that becomes even more powerful by adding said modules no longer have that option to boost that one aspect. To me it is a simple change, and something that would not really be a nerf to a chassis over all, but would remove the ability to buff something that really doesn't need more buffs in the first place, with out having to bring down the hammer on mechs.

No one ever said, a mech was useless because they couldn't add a module unlike nerfs which can really go to far. I think this is a good way to compromise.

[kesmai]

Scrap modules. All of them.
Scrap the mech based skill tree.

Replace this by a pilot based skill tree based on number drops and performance in each weight class.
Add the same for the use of weapons.

Find a way to refund gxp.

Make MWO great (again) ™

[Monkey Lover]

Not a bad idea, of course i think only the kdk3 needs a nerf right now We dont even need to go negative, just remove the quirks.

[Juodas Varnas]

kesmai, on 24 August 2016 - 01:02 AM, said:

Scrap modules. All of them.
Scrap the mech based skill tree.

Scrap consumables while you're at it!
(or better yet, implement them into the equipment. Add the seismic sensor into the BAP, things like strikes into the Command Console or whatever, and make UAVs with critslots and tonnage)

[Alistair Winter]

What's the point of this? It's still effectively a nerf. The only thing you're avoiding is to trigger the delicate minds of MWO gamers who can't handle the emotional strain of nerfs.

If you're buffing 50% of the mechs in MWO, you're effectively nerfing the other 50% relative to the first mechs. They are essentially less powerful. If you buff ballistics, you're effectively nerfing other weapon types, relatively speaking.

So why are nerfs so bad? It's a purely irrational stance, and I don't see why PGI should let it spin out of control just because some people get emotional about red numbers.

[kesmai]

Juodas Varnas, on 24 August 2016 - 01:08 AM, said:

Scrap consumables while you're at it!
(or better yet, implement them into the equipment. Add the seismic sensor into the BAP, things like strikes into the Command Console or whatever, and make UAVs with critslots and tonnage)

Make consumables like Cs and uav with a weight and uses crit slots. Tie strikes to the command or a similar module, also using weight and crits...

Edited by kesmai, 24 August 2016 - 01:23 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Alistair Winter, on 24 August 2016 - 01:11 AM, said:

So why are nerfs so bad? It's a purely irrational stance, and I don't see why PGI should let it spin out of control just because some people get emotional about red numbers.

I never said they were bad.. I am just saying Adding a module is a Pure buff.. Just like some mechs have 1 mech module slot, and others have 3,, Some mechs have 1 weapon slot, others have 3.. + (the master bonus)

so all mechs are not created equal in this, and i think doing this.. Just like adding sized hard points is another way to make mechs more unique, Not less.. And also help curb those mechs that are above and beyond the normal mech is all.

If a mech is already a top performer in one aspect, even with out quirks, Does it need another buff on top of it? I say no and adding neg quirks, just to buff it and balance it with a module makes no sense. Many of the nerfs that have hit this game, effecting weapon systems are due to a couple of situations, not persay the weapon system as a whole. So if we can limit that one aspect, shouldn't we?

Like the whole hard point inflation thing, if boats many weapons, does it need more boosts on top of that, if it is already at the top anyway? See what i am saying? Modules are pure buffs, and sometimes things just don't need another buff.

Maybe work on a list of mechs and modules exclusions? Personally i'd rather see a mech not beable to add a module,.. Verse like they did with the AC2, and nerf it, because the shadow hawk was so killer. It was one mech, that cause the nerf. Maybe a small adjustment like this would have been far better, than kill the AC2 for a couple years, know what i mean?

Edited by JC Daxion, 24 August 2016 - 01:39 AM.

[Random Carnage]

Nope. I'm sorry, what was the question? Ooh, shiny...

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Some modules should be pilot skills that do not require spending stupid amounts of cbills. Advanced Sensor Range, Hill Climb, and Speed Retention are examples of things a very expereinced pilot (see mastering a mech) should be able to know how to do with their mech, seen as fine tuning the sensor settings, knowing exactly how to move the mech and how to compensate for damaged parts. Hell, advanced Gyro could go in this catagory.

Some modules don't make sense to go into the post mastery skills (which would give XP on a mech something other than MC bait for turning into GXP), namely weapon modules and equipment augmentation modules (enhanced narc though should be a pilot skill, same with the AMS overload, both are tuning of equipment, not buying a different brand). Weapon Modules, and modules like Radar Derp should be seen as additional after market equipment, say weapon modules being hunting down parts and tools to fine tune your weapons of choice and giving them to your tech's, or finding a specific company's brand of weapon that just barely does better than the market standard.

More or less removing modules wouldn't do much, they are marginal at best for weapons, the only true powerful modules are Advanced Seismic Sensor and Radar Deprivation. If you really wanted to bring outlier mechs in line you would have do things that will get people screaming bloody murder. What is that? Change hard points, or I should say, decrease hard points on certain mechs. Kodiak 3? Remove 1 ballistic from each side, and have it remove the highest mount, yeah, sure, people will (once they calm down) switch to twin gauss, but, that at least takes a smidgen of skill and has some hefty drawbacks.

Best thing to do is for any mech that is performing far too well is to set it's hard points equal to the number of weapons it has in lore. This isn't to be applied to all mechs, including the worst of the bunch, no, just the best of the bunch. People will still power game it with omni's, but, it will reign in the power creep a bit, for a while.

[PhoenixFire55]

kesmai, on 24 August 2016 - 01:02 AM, said:

Scrap modules. All of them.
Scrap the mech based skill tree.

Replace this by a pilot based skill tree based on number drops and performance in each weight class.
Add the same for the use of weapons.

Find a way to refund gxp.

Make MWO great (again) ™

Yeah, what he said.

Juodas Varnas, on 24 August 2016 - 01:08 AM, said:

Scrap consumables while you're at it!
(or better yet, implement them into the equipment. Add the seismic sensor into the BAP, things like strikes into the Command Console or whatever, and make UAVs with critslots and tonnage)

And not a word about quads. Son ... I am disappoint.
Anyway, what he said as well.

[Kirkland Langue]

PGI has a very clear track record of:
1. Release OP mech for cash.
2. Nerf OP mech after cash sales dry up.
3. Repeat.

Players are idiots to ask PGI to nerf any mech, no matter how good it is, because PGI already has plenty of plans to nerf that mech to the point where the next mech will be the better choice. If you really feel like offering advice on how to balance the game - offer ways to Buff the weakest of mechs. There are plenty of mechs that see virtually no play simply because they are awful. THOSE are the mechs that players should be concerned with. But, instead, people focus upon the mechs they see.

And so the cycle repeats. Because Players are short-sighted idiots.

[JC Daxion]

Kirkland Langue, on 25 August 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

PGI has a very clear track record of:
1. Release OP mech for cash.
2. Nerf OP mech after cash sales dry up.
3. Repeat.

Players are idiots to ask PGI to nerf any mech, no matter how good it is, because PGI already has plenty of plans to nerf that mech to the point where the next mech will be the better choice. If you really feel like offering advice on how to balance the game - offer ways to Buff the weakest of mechs. There are plenty of mechs that see virtually no play simply because they are awful. THOSE are the mechs that players should be concerned with. But, instead, people focus upon the mechs they see.

And so the cycle repeats. Because Players are short-sighted idiots.

tell me how you really feel? I don't think i'm the idiot, when many mechs i am talking about are not new.. Just a few examples i have been pondering..



Streak Crow, this thing wrecks lights in basically one volley. Not much you can do about that, but what it doesn't need is MORE RANGE, or even faster recharge!


Nova SL, boat.. One of the highest DPS short ranged killers in the game.. Does it need even faster recharge, and range to = more DPS?

Lights that boat 8 SLP's, they are tough on larger mechs, but the real issue is 1 v 1 against other lights.. again an example of a very limited situation that a couple mechs, don't need even more fire power.

Quad SRM griffin.. again hits like a ton of bricks and can take down a mech in just a few vollies. Perhaps it does not need missile modules after all.


Yes other mechs could use some buffs, But that doesn't mean top performing mechs couldn't use a little less of one. And seeing how, Energy draw is a huge new balance tool, and all sorts of things are being reworked, now is the perfect time to bring up this sort of issue.

[RestosIII]

kesmai, on 24 August 2016 - 01:02 AM, said:

Scrap modules. All of them.
Scrap the mech based skill tree.

Replace this by a pilot based skill tree based on number drops and performance in each weight class.
Add the same for the use of weapons.

Find a way to refund gxp.

Make MWO great (again) ™

[Dino Banino]

*sighs*

Or maybe just bring back "repair and rearm" (although a more refined version)

That would balance every single 'Mech in the game without "quirks" or "modules".

God bless the direction this game is going into.

You wanna drop into a match with that scary Kodiak? SURE, just be ready to pay for its repairs. >_>

Edited by Archangel Dino, 25 August 2016 - 07:19 PM.

[RestosIII]

Archangel Dino, on 25 August 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

*sighs*

Or maybe just bring back "repair and rearm" (although a more refined version)

That would balance every single 'Mech in the game without "quirks" or "modules".

God bless the direction this game is going into.

[Dino Banino]

RestosIII, on 25 August 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

What's wrong, Tier 2? Can't play well enough to pay for repairs/ammo?

Go on and apply ice to that burn.

[RestosIII]

Archangel Dino, on 25 August 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

What's wrong, Tier 2? Can't play well enough to pay for repairs/ammo?

Go on and apply ice to that burn.

Repair and rearm is just bad in multiplayer games. If you don't remember, it was garbage in this game, and in general makes certain weapon systems inherently worse.

Edited by RestosIII, 25 August 2016 - 07:23 PM.

[Dino Banino]

RestosIII, on 25 August 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

Repair and rearm is just bad in multiplayer games. If you don't remember, it was garbage in this game, and in general makes certain weapon systems inherently worse.

Well, you're right - it was garbage. That's why I stated in my original post wishing for a "more refined version" of R&R.

But it really is the only way of truly balancing the game - economics. Either that or using the Battle Value system but BV points can't be reliable always.

[RestosIII]

Archangel Dino, on 25 August 2016 - 07:28 PM, said:

Well, you're right - it was garbage. That's why I stated in my original post wishing for a "more refined version" of R&R.

But it really is the only way of truly balancing the game - economics. Either that or using the Battle Value system but BV points can't be reliable always.

Please explain how R & R can be anything but encouraging farming damage while keeping your mech in as good shape as possible. Because that's what R & R systems do in every game I've seen them in. And we already have enough people that won't push in an assault mech, once you add a repairs you're going to get a lot more LLas sniping Atli. Plus, R & R systems inherently punish newer players more than veterans, due to vets having a full mech stable and reserve C-Bills. If your response to that is wiping people's C-Bills to make it an even playing field, then you're crazy, so there isn't a real way to balance it between new and old.

[Kirkland Langue]

Repair and rearm works in WoT and WoWS because those games have tiers - with the lower tiers being profitable and the higher tiers being harder to be profitable. Players can choose the tier that they play in, and therefore can find enjoyment playing mid-tiers while still earning a profit so that they feel they are advancing.

PGI 100% should have just tried to duplicate WoT, using mechs. Actually, PGI's initial plan sounded good - the problem is that PGI either never intended to actually carry out that plan; or never had the aptitude to do so. In either case, going with a WoT clone would have been a much better route than the crap they churned out, which now requires a whack-a-mole approach to balance, with nobody being happy because either their mech isn't at the top of the hill, or because everyone is crying for their mech to be pulled down from the top of the hill.