17 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Disclaimer: I wish I could have got more testing in, but I was only able to get enough matches to adequately test so many builds. I ran more, but either just once/twice or results where inconclusive. Did the best I could in the time I had available; ran lots of other builds around in the testing grounds (particularly heat/dps testing of heavily boated builds)

Methodology of my testing: I preferred testing with heavier mechs, as they're most impacted by ED. Light heavies, mediums, lights - they're only moderately impacted if at all. I focused mostly on mixed builds, though I did some boating for comparison.

Builds tested thoroughly listed here: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5358699

---

Overall Thoughts

I thoroughly enjoyed this PTS, probably had more fun that I ever have before in MWO. I like 4v4 a lot, but that's not why (after all, I'm not all ga ga over Scouting). I really enjoyed thinking about what I was going to fire and when, and choosing the right weapon for the right instant, instead of just building my mech around a group of weapons I'd fire as soon as I had enough heat.

I found brawling with LBX/SRM and AC/SRM builds tons of fun, as you needed to spread your fire between twists; this felt faster and more dynamic, even though fights took longer. When building a mech, you need to consider it's burst capabilities and it's DPS capabilities, and look at ways to maximize both.

PTS1 didn't lengthen TTK noticably. PTS2 absolutely did. If longer TTK is important, then this is achieving that.

I respect that some prefer having harder hits; I myself actually preferred lighter penalties, but as I said in my PTS1 recommendation thread, I felt this PTS was very well served by heavier heat penalties clamping down on hard alphas. With that said, I honestly feel the harsher penalties will lead to a better game, despite personally preferring lighter ones (for much the same reason as I'd prefer to have neither ghost heat nor energy draw, but I understand that would be bad for the game as a whole).

The biggest takeaway here is that I was able to find very solidly workable builds using all sorts of hardpoint limitations, and at no point felt terribly outmatched in combat, particular not vs. boated builds.

What I Liked Best:

I really enjoyed how rewarding mixed builds were, and particularly how LBX autocannons of all sizes had a very real place in mech builds. Many complained about "mixed builds being trash", but I found that the only cases where mixed builds suffered is where people where running builds that were allowed by GH due to differing weapon types to deal very heavy damage in a very short time. That's basically what this system is addressing, putting a cap on just how much damage you can burst (not necessarily purely front load, but fire within a very short time).

What I Liked Least:

PPC's of all stripes. They where overnerfed from PTS1. I respect why that happened, but I found with the long cooldown now and the already existing issues PPC's have with low velocity, there is way too much risk and too little reward. PPC's are in a bad place on PTS2 at the moment, of that there's no doubt.

My Recommendations:

For me, this PTS is very close to where I'd love to be live. I'd like to see:

PPC: Decreased cooldown.
ERPPC: Decreased cooldown.
CERPPC: 15 damage PPFLD, 15 heat, 15 draw with existing cooldown; or if the splash damage absolutely must remain, the a substantially decreased cooldown. As it stands, the cERPPC is dealing 10 useful damage, 2.5 maybe-useful damage, and *might* do 2.5 damage to an arm for 15 heat and 15 draw. It's a terrible weapon right now.

I'm happy with where Autocannons, Ultra Autocannons, and *GASP* LBX Autocannons are right now. I find Lasers of all sorts usable in different roles, and SRM's and LRM's to be excellent - SRM's are a great energy:damage conversion, if severely spread, and LRM's are buffed significantly on this PTS(while remaining limited in extreme boating circumstances), which is a good thing given how junky they are normally.

I'd maybe consider a slightly higher cap; maybe 35 heat, but I'm fine with it staying at 30. I'd recommend a slightly lower penalty, but 1:1 is WAY easier to understand, and 0.5:1 allows for too many hard alphas given the goals of the system.

Final thought

I really want to try this on live, because it needs to be tested 12v12 in open and uncontrolled matches.

Edited by Wintersdark, 25 August 2016 - 04:11 PM.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

My only point of contention is that I think the Clan ERPPCs should keep their splash and retake their 4.5 cooldown. 15 damage PPFLD could be neat, but I think that for the sake of consistency -and weapon variety on the clan side- I'd prefer splash and a 4.5 sec cooldown.

If you want the 15 PPFLD and slow cool down the gauss rifle is always available.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 24 August 2016 - 02:27 PM.

[Navid A1]

LRMs were buffed?

Last time I check LRM20 and 15 were junk.

Did LRM20 spread decreased to LRM5 levels?... because that is the solution to large LRMs

[Chados]

One thing that ought to be tested is a blanket velocity buff for the PPC and ER PPC. It ought to be kicked up 50% for the IS and 30% for the Clan ER PPC (which is higher velocity than the IS already, if I recall correctly), and mechs like the Marauder 3R, Phoenix Hawk 1B, and Summoner Prime that have PPC velocity quirks ought to have those changed to PPC heat reduction quirks instead. And all the Marauders across the board other than the 5M ought to get that heat quirk too.

The comment regarding the MAD-5M is because it's a Marik build and they seem to prefer lasers.

[Navid A1]

Wintersdark, on 24 August 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

Final thought

I really want to try this on live, because it needs to be tested 12v12 in open and uncontrolled matches.

Well, we have a PTS for a reason...
Please be patient... nothing is as good as it seems

So I suggest making the PTS 12v12 and giving rewards for people who participate.
Then we can test it without having a train-wreck on live servers

[Sereglach]

Admittedly, I'm missing the LRM buff here, particularly the terribly inefficient larger launchers. While their Energy Draw is in a good spot (as with most spread weapons), the larger LRM systems themselves do need some help otherwise to make them competitive vs. the LRM/5. Granted, you can't endlessly spam LRM/5's anymore, but fixing that one issue doesn't fix the disparity between the LRM/5 vs. the larger launchers in equal volley comparisons.

I also think the C-ERPPC should keep it's splash damage. Lower the Energy Draw on the C-ERPPC (maybe 13?) and up the PPC velocities across the board; but I wouldn't give the C-ERPPC full PPFLD.

Outside of that, I think you've got a solid set of feedback and points. However, you are missing bringing Flamers into Energy Draw, because it just makes sense to do so . . . but that's more of a personal -yet logical- goal that I hope PGI does.

[Reno Blade]

I see it very much the same way.

- ACs, LBX and SRMs feel pretty good.
- LBX and UACs having less draw than ACs is great mix.

- Lasers are a touch too hot on the clan side (without penalties)

- LRMs are nearly unaffected (and mechs with smaller tubes will benefit from staggered power draw)

- PPCs are a bit too hot (without penalties)
I feel that heat of PPCs is the biggest issue now, I could live with longer CDs and i definitely want to keep the velocity roughly the same (maybe a 20% increase max, but then no more 50% quirks).


My suggestion would be to either this: (VALUES EDITED)
PPC 10 dmg, 9 heat, 12 draw, 4.6s cd
isERPPC 10dmg, 13 heat, 12 draw, 5s cd
cERPPC 10 +2.5 +2.5 dmg, 14 heat, 15 draw, 5s cd

or something like this: (VALUES EDITED)
PPC 10 dmg, 8 heat, 12 draw, 5s cd
isERPPC 10dmg, 12 heat, 13 draw, 5.4s cd
cERPPC 10 +2.5 +2.5 dmg, 14 heat, 15 draw, 5.4s cd

but my favorite choice would be this with less heat, but more splash: (VALUES EDITED)
PPC 7 +1.5 +1.5 dmg, 8 heat, 10 draw, 4.6s cd
isERPPC 8 +1 +1 dmg, 10 heat, 12 draw, 5s cd
cERPPC 9 +3 +3 dmg, 12 heat, 14 draw, 5s cd

And for the Cap and dissipation, I would not go above 30 with the current numbers. Rather down to 28 to give 3x LL/LP some small penalties already. (if we would want to go that far).

For reference:
PPC with 12 draw in current PTS2 with 1.0 penalty per overdraw compared to GH, no-penalty and other values such as 1.5 and 2.0 penalties:

please note "PTS1 - 1.0 penalty" should be named "PTS - 1.5 penalty"

Edited by Reno Blade, 28 August 2016 - 08:36 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

I agree that the ERPPC and PPC are outclassed by nearly every other weapon right now. My suggestion would be lowering the cooldown so that Mechs that can only run one are not penalized. I think the ED is OK but that the Heat could go back to 14.

AC/UAC seem a bit too strong IMO when they are boated.

I still need to test LBX and SRMs but RL is going to get in the way this evening.

Overall, I agree with your assessment although, even with your suggested changes, I do not want this to go on the live server before 12v12 testing is done on the PTS.

[Wintersdark]

Sereglach, on 24 August 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

Admittedly, I'm missing the LRM buff here, particularly the terribly inefficient larger launchers. While their Energy Draw is in a good spot (as with most spread weapons), the larger LRM systems themselves do need some help otherwise to make them competitive vs. the LRM/5. Granted, you can't endlessly spam LRM/5's anymore, but fixing that one issue doesn't fix the disparity between the LRM/5 vs. the larger launchers in equal volley comparisons.

I also think the C-ERPPC should keep it's splash damage. Lower the Energy Draw on the C-ERPPC (maybe 13?) and up the PPC velocities across the board; but I wouldn't give the C-ERPPC full PPFLD.

Outside of that, I think you've got a solid set of feedback and points. However, you are missing bringing Flamers into Energy Draw, because it just makes sense to do so . . . but that's more of a personal -yet logical- goal that I hope PGI does.

Energy Draw is really Magic Space Power Draw, and should in no way be changed to "make sense" in a "realistic way" - battletech physics are already very crazy.

Flamers - and Machine Guns - are excluded for a reason. Makes them interesting tools that would have zero chance of being included in builds otherwise.

LRM's are buffed vs. Ghost Heat in that you can fire a lot more launchers without a penalty, and when you do get into penalties they remain very minor. For example, on PTS2 my MDD can group fire 5xLRM5 and 1xLRM10 and be heat neutral doing it. On live, that triggers substantial ghost heat (as it's using the LRM10 ghost heat multiplier and counting +3 launchers over limit). On PTS2, it doesn't care about how many launchers, just how many tubes you're firing (well, how much damage, but it's the same thing) and at .75 too. 3xLRM15? No ED penalty, but a ghost heat penalty on live.

Edit: But yeah, large LRM launchers have been broken for years; that problem is a real one (everything should have ~lrm10 spread) but not one in any way related to ED.

Rampage, on 25 August 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

Overall, I agree with your assessment although, even with your suggested changes, I do not want this to go on the live server before 12v12 testing is done on the PTS.

I'd prefer 12v12 PTS testing, if they can actually make it work. So few willing to actually do it, and for whatever reason Russ seems really reluctant to have an incentive program to get people testing.

Edited by Wintersdark, 25 August 2016 - 04:12 PM.

[Navid A1]

Of course it needs more testing.

However,sadly, quick emotional reactions have already sealed the deal. And PGI is known for being hungry for compliments.

I really want the new system to work. I'm trying to find exploits.. that is how you test!!!
That is why I avoid patting PGI on the back. Because that is how you stop someone from improving their product. And PGI in particular tries to find 1 or 2 positive feedbacks with some "awesome" or "amazing" terms in it, and they think they have solved a century long mystery

Sadly since yesterday, I'll be away from my PC for a couple weeks and I can only watch everything unfold.

[Sereglach]

Wintersdark, on 25 August 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

Energy Draw is really Magic Space Power Draw, and should in no way be changed to "make sense" in a "realistic way" - battletech physics are already very crazy.

Flamers - and Machine Guns - are excluded for a reason. Makes them interesting tools that would have zero chance of being included in builds otherwise.

First off, where do I say I'm trying to make sense of any magic space physics or any such thing? I am saying that it makes mechanical sense to bring the Flamer into Energy Draw. It fixes every flaw we currently have with the weapon system on Live; and prevents any of the exploits that led to the Flamergeddon.

I even did a whole outline about it, HERE. Regardless, the biggest thing is that it would get rid of the Flamers convoluted mechanics which, like ghost heat, are not accurately or effectively explained to any player anywhere within the UI. That's another of the big reasons people have espoused for Energy Draw's superiority: It's explained and present in the UI (even if some of the UI work -namely mech lab- needs to be completed). Not to mention that if they were properly fixed and brought into Energy Draw there'd be plenty of reason to bring them into mech builds.

Otherwise, I never touched Machine Guns. I think they're perfectly fitting not having Heat or Energy Draw. If they fixed the flaws of that weapon system I think they'd be far more desirable to bring into builds instead of just extra heat sinks for most people.

Wintersdark, on 25 August 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

LRM's are buffed vs. Ghost Heat in that you can fire a lot more launchers without a penalty, and when you do get into penalties they remain very minor. For example, on PTS2 my MDD can group fire 5xLRM5 and 1xLRM10 and be heat neutral doing it. On live, that triggers substantial ghost heat (as it's using the LRM10 ghost heat multiplier and counting +3 launchers over limit). On PTS2, it doesn't care about how many launchers, just how many tubes you're firing (well, how much damage, but it's the same thing) and at .75 too. 3xLRM15? No ED penalty, but a ghost heat penalty on live.

Edit: But yeah, large LRM launchers have been broken for years; that problem is a real one (everything should have ~lrm10 spread) but not one in any way related to ED.

Buffed vs. Ghost Heat? Ok, I'll go with that. However, larger launchers vs. the LRM/5 I'm glad we agree that there's a serious issue that needs to be fixed.

----------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I think the big thing here is that, while they're obviously tweaking values of weapons and attempting to do weapon balance while implementing the Energy Draw system (so far we've seen weapon heat values, spread values, range, and even component health), we should consider doing more changes that will balance the system as a whole and make Energy Draw -and corresponding weapon balance- more appealing to implement.

Edited by Sereglach, 25 August 2016 - 05:25 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Sereglach, on 25 August 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

First off, where do I say I'm trying to make sense of any magic space physics or any such thing? I am saying that it makes mechanical sense to bring the Flamer into Energy Draw. It fixes every flaw we currently have with the weapon system on Live; and prevents any of the exploits that led to the Flamergeddon.

Flamergeddon? I don't recall a flamer issue currently... they're usable, but not dominating play. At least not any play I see.

*shrugs* To be honest, I don't care enough about flamers to have really paid any attention to the whole deal; I haven't seen them be a significant problem, so I just haven't paid any attention to them or posts about them. I'd like them to be better, yes, but I'm tired, recovering from surgery, and already putting a lot of time and effort into this, so... Yeah, flamers are outside of my limits. Given they don't do damage and are a utility thing though, on the face of it I kind of like how they're outside the system right now.

I fully accept that I may have missed a serious issue that nobody highlighted while I was testing on the PTS, and if so that's totally on me - I'm absolutely not saying you're wrong and I'm right here, but it's something I can't talk with any real authority about and am insufficiently interested to pursue unless there's a noteworthy problem.

Quote

Personally, I think the big thing here is that, while they're obviously tweaking values of weapons and attempting to do weapon balance while implementing the Energy Draw system (so far we've seen weapon heat values, spread values, range, and even component health), we should consider doing more changes that will balance the system as a whole and make Energy Draw -and corresponding weapon balance- more appealing to implement.

Oh, I'd love that.

I'm not pursuing non-ED related balance issues for a reason, however. While I think it'd be great if those things get fixed, I'm trying to be as focused as possible both due to the limitations in how much time I can physically spend in a chair and because my experience with PGI has been that the bigger the wall of text and more extensive the list of recommendations, the more likely they are to have TLDR issues. That may be entirely unfair, but it's a concern I have.

I enjoy ED a lot, and want to improve it, so I'm doing my best to provide as useful and likely to listened to feedback as possible.

To be sure: In no way am I arguing with you on anything here; just providing the best feedback I can, limited as much as possible to the things that I've directly tested in the system or had direct experience with (ex: things used against me frequently)



Edit: The first part above may be taken wrong. I *do* care that Flamers be improved; it's just that in my current state, even sitting in a chair is physically painful, so exhaustion tends to interfere with things =)

Edited by Wintersdark, 25 August 2016 - 05:47 PM.

[Twinkleblade]

Chados, on 24 August 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

One thing that ought to be tested is a blanket velocity buff for the PPC and ER PPC. It ought to be kicked up 50% for the IS and 30% for the Clan ER PPC (which is higher velocity than the IS already, if I recall correctly), and mechs like the Marauder 3R, Phoenix Hawk 1B, and Summoner Prime that have PPC velocity quirks ought to have those changed to PPC heat reduction quirks instead. And all the Marauders across the board other than the 5M ought to get that heat quirk too.

The comment regarding the MAD-5M is because it's a Marik build and they seem to prefer lasers.

This is also what I would prefer. With the current stats a velocity increase would be the best way to buff PPCs.

[JC Daxion]

Chados, on 24 August 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

One thing that ought to be tested is a blanket velocity buff for the PPC and ER PPC. It ought to be kicked up 50% for the IS and 30% for the Clan ER PPC (which is higher velocity than the IS already, if I recall correctly), and mechs like the Marauder 3R, Phoenix Hawk 1B, and Summoner Prime that have PPC velocity quirks ought to have those changed to PPC heat reduction quirks instead. And all the Marauders across the board other than the 5M ought to get that heat quirk too.

The comment regarding the MAD-5M is because it's a Marik build and they seem to prefer lasers.

Exactly, PPC's need to be buffed on speed, and all vellocity quirks need to GO.. that means all, including ballistic, missile, and PPC.. Speed chance is not something that should be quirked.. It makes zero since.

[Sereglach]

Wintersdark, on 25 August 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

Flamergeddon? I don't recall a flamer issue currently... they're usable, but not dominating play. At least not any play I see.

Apparently you missed the first week after the Flamers got just some number tuning, instead of proper reengineering (like was promised since the Blackjack release when that change didn't go well, was supposed to be done the month after the Firestarter release, Paul said it was nearly complete . . . then we didn't hear anything until they did some numbers tuning at the beginning of the year). There was a blatant exploit in its mechanics (well known, well documented, resulted in a huge "I told you so" from me to PGI) that caused Russ's Twitter and the Forums to explode in rage because you could stunlock people and never generate a point of heat on yourself while using flamers.

This resulted in the convoluted system we have now, where it has a 4.25 second "magic free fire window" combined with a 4.25 second "imposed soft-cooldown" and exponential numbers scaling that isn't explained anywhere. Bringing it into Energy Draw completely fixes all the problems it has (if done right).

Wintersdark, on 25 August 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

*shrugs* To be honest, I don't care enough about flamers to have really paid any attention to the whole deal; I haven't seen them be a significant problem, so I just haven't paid any attention to them or posts about them. I'd like them to be better, yes, but I'm tired, recovering from surgery, and already putting a lot of time and effort into this, so... Yeah, flamers are outside of my limits. Given they don't do damage and are a utility thing though, on the face of it I kind of like how they're outside the system right now.

Edit: The first part above may be taken wrong. I *do* care that Flamers be improved; it's just that in my current state, even sitting in a chair is physically painful, so exhaustion tends to interfere with things =)

I fully accept that I may have missed a serious issue that nobody highlighted while I was testing on the PTS, and if so that's totally on me - I'm absolutely not saying you're wrong and I'm right here, but it's something I can't talk with any real authority about and am insufficiently interested to pursue unless there's a noteworthy problem.

Most people don't see them as a problem because they're basically a broken weapon system in their current state . . . what usefulness they have is horrifically overshadowed by their flaws. Russ implemented the mechanics knowing it destroyed the weapon's usefulness and he'd stop hearing complaints about it (his Twitter really did explode during that timeframe).

Either way, if you want, read the post I linked and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Wintersdark, on 25 August 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

Oh, I'd love that.

I'm not pursuing non-ED related balance issues for a reason, however. While I think it'd be great if those things get fixed, I'm trying to be as focused as possible both due to the limitations in how much time I can physically spend in a chair and because my experience with PGI has been that the bigger the wall of text and more extensive the list of recommendations, the more likely they are to have TLDR issues. That may be entirely unfair, but it's a concern I have.

I enjoy ED a lot, and want to improve it, so I'm doing my best to provide as useful and likely to listened to feedback as possible.

To be sure: In no way am I arguing with you on anything here; just providing the best feedback I can, limited as much as possible to the things that I've directly tested in the system or had direct experience with (ex: things used against me frequently)

I hope, then, that with enough effort and pushing from people, PGI realizes that this is the perfect time to get some serious weapon tuning and balance done here for both Energy Draw and discrepancies in weapon systems in general. It would be a win-win for everyone and help the game immensely.

At least we're both on the same page of wanting to improve the system and improve the game as a whole.

Edited by Sereglach, 25 August 2016 - 06:16 PM.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Navid A1, on 24 August 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

Well, we have a PTS for a reason...
Please be patient... nothing is as good as it seems

So I suggest making the PTS 12v12 and giving rewards for people who participate.
Then we can test it without having a train-wreck on live servers

This is an excellent idea.

It could have avoided the minimap ****up and lost friendly doritos.

At least they are using the PST, even if they don't seem to have a good feel for balancing yet.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Reno Blade, on 25 August 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

My suggestion would be to either this:
PPC 10 dmg, 9 heat, 12 draw, 5s cd
isERPPC 10dmg, 13 heat, 12 draw, 5.5s cd
cERPPC 10 +2.5 +2.5 dmg, 14 heat, 15 draw, 5.5s cd

or something like this:
PPC 10 dmg, 8 heat, 12 draw, 6s cd
isERPPC 10dmg, 12 heat, 12 draw, 6.2s cd
cERPPC 10 +2.5 +2.5 dmg, 13 heat, 15 draw, 6.2s cd

but my favorite choice would be this with less heat, but more splash:
PPC 7 +1.5 +1.5 dmg, 8 heat, 10 draw, 5s cd
isERPPC 8 +1 +1 dmg, 12 heat, 11 draw, 5.5s cd
cERPPC 9 +3 +3 dmg, 13 heat, 12 draw, 5.5s cd

I think you're inflating the PPCs cooldown quite abit too high in these suggestions. 5.25 is already a bit rediculous, 6.2s is nutts IMO. The PPC if not boated is not anywhere near powerful enough to justify cooldown numbers like that. Since the PPC boats are what prompted PPC nerfs, I feel like the boats should take most of the punishment from the nerfs.

Bring PPCs down to 4.5s across the board, maybe lower the heat too, but the ED should be where the nerfs lie.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 25 August 2016 - 07:59 PM.