24 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

Originally posted by: /u/Tarogato on Reddit

Quote

I'm going to start by saying that I don't think energy draw accomplishes any of the goals set out by the developer. If this mechanic were introduced to MWO, I would most likely quit playing the game because I won't enjoy it as much anymore. The present day ghost heat on the live server is a much better system and fosters a much more enjoyable and diverse meta. I'm happy with the current sitation on live and I'm happy with the current TTK. While I think it would be nice for ghost heat to be more transparent to new players, I don't think it's such a huge problem that it merits a completely new mechanic to replace it, one which is flawed at the fundamental level. Let's talk about why I think that is.



First,

light mechs are pretty much unaffected. Okay.
a few medium mechs are pretty severely affected because they skirt awkwardly around the 30 damage cap. NVA, SHD, SCR, HBK, and HBK-IIC are first to come to mind.
heavies fair pretty well because they can effectively distribute their alpha into two 30-damage half-alphas.
a few assaults are completely boned, like the Atlas, Gargoyle, Executioner, the gauss-vomit DWF, yet the BNC and BLR can reasonably alpha 5 LPL now? Wat.
In general, lasers and brawling seem to get the short end of the stick, while PPFLD alphas gets buffed slightly. Not to the point of hexa-PPC Stalkerpocalypse, but... it's a noticeable shift. Mind you, PPFLD is already rising in popularity on the live servers as is. It's really quite balanced with laser boating and brawling, and I don't see the need to upset this balance by making such drastic alterations to the heat system at this time.



With the need for the four different weight classes to have different energy caps (otherwise lights would be somewhat overpowered) and possibly even different chassis quirked for different caps (like the NVA and GAR), the whole system becomes much more sophisticated than it looks on the surface. Basically... it's the epitome of the community term "ghost heat" because it's not clear to the end user that 30 or whatever arbitrary number of pseudo-damage is the energy cap and it's not clear to the end user how much energy their weapons will draw. Sure, you might know that SRMs draw 75% of their damage as energy, but now you have this convoluted mess of multiply 8.6 * 5 * 0.75 to figure out that 5x SRM4 pulls 32.25 energy, which is 2.25 excess energy, which is 1.125 ghost heat, which is ... okay so I've got 10 trudubs, so that's 20 heat capacity plus 1.5 * 5 poordubs so my full capacity is 25.75 and 1.125 ghost heat means I'll be seeing around +4% extra that I actually see in game on my heat meter. Holy crap that's a lot of math that isn't explained to the player! That's a problem. That's why I'm still calling this system 'ghost heat' - these calculations are unclear to the player. Even if the mechlab gave you more information, I stil don't think it's enough.



Another problem is that this system encourages boating. Literally the opposite of the designers' intentions. A key example: a Maddog or Timberwolf with 4x SRM6+A + 5x cSPL. On the live client, the ghost heat system encourages me to mix different weapon systems, like lasers + srms, because they don't share heat penalties. However, the energy draw system means that I can't fire SRMs and lasers together. In fact, after firing my SRMs, I have to wait so long for the energy to replenish, that by the time I've fired my SPLs, my SRMs are almost ready to fire again. That's a problem because that means now that my brawler must stare at its target and facetank in much the same manner that an AC/2 facetime build would. You don't have time to torso twist without taking a huge chunk out of your DPS. I see this as a problem, especially considering that under the energy draw system I can boat 5x SRM4+A and alpha strike for days with barely any heat penalty at all - the system encouraged me to boat SRMs instead of mixing different types of weapons. The same goes for combinations of ballistic and missiles, like LB and SRMs which is something you would do on Shadowhawks, clan heavies, or something like the Atlas which now must fire its SRMs and AC20 seperately, waiting long enough in between to avoid heat penalty, thus and giving it less time to torso twist between shots if it wants to maintain its respectable DPS (or alpha-striking, incurring a massive heat penalty, and losing almost all of its sustained DPS, which in turn defeats its purpose as a brawler). This is literally promoting stare-fests and taking skillful torso-twisting out of the game for brawlers. That's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem, in my opinion, and a fundamental issue with the system as a whole.



The penalties for high-alpha builds are now less, because they are linear. You can now alpha 5x LPL quite reasonably on the IS side. Running 6x ERLL or PPC boating is also more forgiving. I think the result of these changes - the buffing of long range high-alpha builds, would result in a more passive and alpha-centric playstyle. One of the problems is that brawlers are punished so hard (except for AC/40, which got an incredible buff under this system.) Everything seems to be exactly the opposite of what this system intended to accomplish, making it seem to me like an outright failure.



At this point, I would conclude that the ghost heat system on the live server is miles better for gameplay than the new energy draw system. This new system is not ready - in fact, I'm not even sure what could be done to salvage it. The old ghost heat system encourages you to mix different types of weapons, which is what is good about it. The new draw system encourages you to boat multiple copies the same type of weapon and this is an issue at the fundamental design level. How do you even fix this? I might start by making it so that weapon classes are not linked together - firing SRMs + ballistics together shouldn't incur a penalty, firing LRMs and lasers together shouldn't either. I feel like if I were to redesign this system to the point where I was actually happy with it, the system I would wind up with in the end would basically be the same heatscale system we see on the live servers today - because that's what works and promotes build diversity while punishing excessive boating. If you don't want people alpha-striking ML and LPL together, just create a linked heatscale penalty group for it! Maybe the old ghost heat system makes less sense from the logical or lore standpoint, but in my opinion it is better for gameplay and that is what matters most.



Musings on the specific weapon changes...

Personally, I prefered the gauss charge mechanic. It really helped make the weapon system feel unique, like it rewarded skill even though it wasn't all that hard to use. I would rather have the charge system back, with the limit on charging two gauss simulataneously. I don't like that triple- and quad-gauss builds are literally removed from the game as a universal rule - they aren't even a problem on the live server. It's literally just a fun build that is incredibly risky to run and way outclassed by gauss+PPC combinations. So why does it need to be nuked completley out of the game? Please don't do this.

AC/5 now feels like complete ***. Except maybe on the Mauler, or one or two uberquirked mechs. But generally speaking, AC/5 is now ***. Good luck running it on your Dragons and Wolverines, let alone any mech that isn't super-uber-quirked for it.

I don't like the changes to cLPL. I feel like its damage should have been reduced, not its maxrange. Why in the devil does the IS LPL have its TT damage +1 of 10, while the cLPL gets TT damage +3 of 13? Give the cLPL its range back and make it deal 11 damage instead of 13. Having certain weapons have their maxrange as 2.0x optimal while other certain weapons have their maxrange as 1.5x optimal... is just confusing and convoluted. No, God. No God please no.

[Gas Guzzler]

I agree with Tarogato's assessment.

[Chados]

I don't agree with Tarogato's criticisms. As I said below in another thread (there are at least three cross-posting this),

Quote

PGI just started beta-testing this system. You all ever beta games before? To a certain extent we all are beta testers of this, because it's a perpetual work in progress. But I have play tested flight simulations including Falcon 4.0, Fly II, Flanker 2.0, the early versions of DCS, Tank T72 Balkans on Fire, and IL-2 Sturmovik in several iterations. I did it for many years. Which is why I typically don't run on PTS here, I'm not real interested in more beta testing. But I do follow the comments with a once-professional tester's eye and it bothers me when people make the kind of blanket "it sucks becuase it's not live-side ready" comments about an early beta build that Taro made here. And early beta builds always are a disaster that gets tuned better as time goes by and feedback from the play testers happens. And no, I'm not white knighting for PGI. I'm saying that throwing up your hands over a system that's a week into beta is a lot premature. PGI is making what appears to me to be a credible attempt to introduce a transparent, flexible fix to some longstanding balance problems. Let's work with the system, not against it. If there are elements of the current meta that the community wants to preserve, this is the place to put them.

PTS has been up less than a week and the grognards and otaku are already carping about their ways being nerfed. Well, everything on PTS is on a baseline now where everything draws the same amount of energy. So we are essentially back to pre-Ghost Heat, which has resurrected old metas and buffed LPLs. Give it some time. The whole reason it's on PTS is becuase it *isn't* ready for prime time. At least they seem to have learned from Minimapgate that you don't make large-scale changes direct from alpha without a live beta process first. That's what is going on over on the PTS. If you don't like it, make comments here that are constructive. Help them tune the weapons under the new system so it resembles the old a little more. That's how a beta test works. Not "it sucks because it's new and different, so it must be vanquished" like we all did with the Infowar and laser-lock changes they tried last year. That got shouted down before Version 2.0 ever hit the test server and that's not how you refine a concept to make it player-ready. It takes time to beta test. We did player beta of Falcon 4.0 patches for a couple months before they released. Same with IL-2 and IL-2 Aces, before the games released we tested them for months, and tried to break them, and tried to induce impossible situations that you wouldn't see in game. That's how you test. You're seeing crazy alpha builds right now because that's what people will do in an unrestricted environment, and it's allowing the developer to pull data to tune the system to deal with it.

The PTS testers are part of an effort to build a new feature in an established game. What PGI badly needs is someone to manage the testers and guide them. Gilman Louie did a great job of that with F4 and Oleg Maddox had people that did the same with the IL2 beta test program. The DCS guys like Matt Wagner are real pros who know how to manage a beta test too, I loved working with those guys. PGI ought to have someone from the development side managing the PTS boards and they need to be behind a locked wall that only the testers get to see what the comments are. And they really ought to be recruiting hardcore testers from the community, like Tarogato and others who spend a lot of time in the game and have an understanding of it. Things ought to be through a controlled player test program before an open Phase 3 test like PTS starts, it would reduce the issues we are seeing with posts like this one.

[kapusta11]

I agree with this Tarogato dude. Wouldn't phrase it better myself. Especially in part where he mentions mediums and some assaults being made useless and that's a lot of mechs.

I do appreciate the effort that PGI've put in this new system but I'd much rather prefer them to put it into making bigger LRM launchers not useless, adding alt firing mode to LB-X ACs, introducing new tech etc.

It just looks like PGI don't play their own game, they don't realize that what this new energy draw system is supposed to achieve is already in game.

GH that we have right now is actually more delicate solution to problematic builds, you can address them directly without affecting everything else.

Edited by kapusta11, 20 August 2016 - 01:30 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Chados, on 20 August 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

I don't agree with Tarogato's criticisms. As I said below in another thread (there are at least three cross-posting this),



PTS has been up less than a week and the grognards and otaku are already carping about their ways being nerfed. Well, everything on PTS is on a baseline now where everything draws the same amount of energy. So we are essentially back to pre-Ghost Heat, which has resurrected old metas and buffed LPLs. Give it some time. The whole reason it's on PTS is becuase it *isn't* ready for prime time. At least they seem to have learned from Minimapgate that you don't make large-scale changes direct from alpha without a live beta process first. That's what is going on over on the PTS. If you don't like it, make comments here that are constructive. Help them tune the weapons under the new system so it resembles the old a little more. That's how a beta test works. Not "it sucks because it's new and different, so it must be vanquished" like we all did with the Infowar and laser-lock changes they tried last year. That got shouted down before Version 2.0 ever hit the test server and that's not how you refine a concept to make it player-ready. It takes time to beta test. We did player beta of Falcon 4.0 patches for a couple months before they released. Same with IL-2 and IL-2 Aces, before the games released we tested them for months, and tried to break them, and tried to induce impossible situations that you wouldn't see in game. That's how you test. You're seeing crazy alpha builds right now because that's what people will do in an unrestricted environment, and it's allowing the developer to pull data to tune the system to deal with it.

The PTS testers are part of an effort to build a new feature in an established game. What PGI badly needs is someone to manage the testers and guide them. Gilman Louie did a great job of that with F4 and Oleg Maddox had people that did the same with the IL2 beta test program. The DCS guys like Matt Wagner are real pros who know how to manage a beta test too, I loved working with those guys. PGI ought to have someone from the development side managing the PTS boards and they need to be behind a locked wall that only the testers get to see what the comments are. And they really ought to be recruiting hardcore testers from the community, like Tarogato and others who spend a lot of time in the game and have an understanding of it. Things ought to be through a controlled player test program before an open Phase 3 test like PTS starts, it would reduce the issues we are seeing with posts like this one.

Its not about "our ways being nerfed", its about fundamentally making the game less fun with less variety... It doesn't take time to realize that either.

Its just too limiting, and is actually going to lead to the hesitant poke and hide gameplay that shouldn't be the only way to play.

[Chados]

Look, Gas, I get where you're coming from. But you, Tarogato, and a lot of other folks who take this position are coming from a place that says that what is on PTS right now is what is going on the live server. And that isn't what Russ said. It isn't what any of them said. My point is that it's too early to call this concept a loser.

On the other thread you said my comments had no value because I hadn't played the PTS. You don't have to play the PTS to see an invalid criticism. It isn't valid to strike out this change when every weapon is drawing exactly the same amount of power right now. If they get to the third or fourth iteration of this thing and it isn't getting better, that the time to get worried. Not four days into the test program. That's *my* point. And I don't think that's an unfair position to take. Tarogato's criticisms are based on a perception that what is on PTS right now is what is going live. One of his unit mates in the other thread posted what I thought was a thoughtful support of his position without downing the whole system-that guy doesn't think any amount of tuning is going to fix the underlying problems in balancing. And he might be right. But PGI is at least making a real, public, transparent attempt to address the problems. That, at least, ought to get some respect.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 August 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

Its not about "our ways being nerfed", its about fundamentally making the game less fun with less variety... It doesn't take time to realize that either.

Its just too limiting, and is actually going to lead to the hesitant poke and hide gameplay that shouldn't be the only way to play.

Oh no! I can't fire all my weapons at once, I have to do like the scrubs and fire my weapons in different groups a split second later.

This is what I get from all this whining. Most of the issues he brought forward can be fixed by adjusting the draw values on individual weapons, as well as increasing the heat penalties. None of my heavy and assault mechs play any differently because I ALWAYS fire in groups, so it's obvious that people are whining because they can't alpha everything every few seconds.

[TKSax]

Gentleman Reaper, on 20 August 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Oh no! I can't fire all my weapons at once, I have to do like the scrubs and fire my weapons in different groups a split second later.

This is what I get from all this whining. Most of the issues he brought forward can be fixed by adjusting the draw values on individual weapons, as well as increasing the heat penalties. None of my heavy and assault mechs play any differently because I ALWAYS fire in groups, so it's obvious that people are whining because they can't alpha everything every few seconds.

Actually, you can Alpha, several times with weapons that on the live server you could not.

[Gas Guzzler]

Gentleman Reaper, on 20 August 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Oh no! I can't fire all my weapons at once, I have to do like the scrubs and fire my weapons in different groups a split second later.

This is what I get from all this whining. Most of the issues he brought forward can be fixed by adjusting the draw values on individual weapons, as well as increasing the heat penalties. None of my heavy and assault mechs play any differently because I ALWAYS fire in groups, so it's obvious that people are whining because they can't alpha everything every few seconds.

The alpha I could handle. If I have a mech with 2 UAC10s and a handful of other weapons. I can't even double tap my UAC10s without incurring bonus heat, let alone think about firing my other weapons.

And honestly, if you think the game is better served to be a PPFLD poke fest then that is your prerogative, but most would disagree. In order to bring out brawling you can't just stare and fire hot weapons. That's how you die. If you were to read Tarogatos post there is nothing about not being able to alpha. So its pretty clear that you haven't read it, so why don't you do that instead of trying to insult me.

Chados, on 20 August 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Look, Gas, I get where you're coming from. But you, Tarogato, and a lot of other folks who take this position are coming from a place that says that what is on PTS right now is what is going on the live server. And that isn't what Russ said. It isn't what any of them said. My point is that it's too early to call this concept a loser.

On the other thread you said my comments had no value because I hadn't played the PTS. You don't have to play the PTS to see an invalid criticism. It isn't valid to strike out this change when every weapon is drawing exactly the same amount of power right now. If they get to the third or fourth iteration of this thing and it isn't getting better, that the time to get worried. Not four days into the test program. That's *my* point. And I don't think that's an unfair position to take. Tarogato's criticisms are based on a perception that what is on PTS right now is what is going live. One of his unit mates in the other thread posted what I thought was a thoughtful support of his position without downing the whole system-that guy doesn't think any amount of tuning is going to fix the underlying problems in balancing. And he might be right. But PGI is at least making a real, public, transparent attempt to address the problems. That, at least, ought to get some respect.

Its not even that it will be released as is, its that we don't have confidence that we can actually fix whats wrong with it without breaking something else. The issue with tying weapons together is that in order to fix the boating of them, you essentially have to make them useless.

[Chados]

But isn't that why they're *testing* it? To *see* if they can fix the problems with it using this mechanic?

[kapusta11]

Chados, on 20 August 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

But isn't that why they're *testing* it? To *see* if they can fix the problems with it using this mechanic?

So far it has more problems than live build of the game. And the more they test it, the more likely it will go live even if it sucks in the end simply because they've spent a lot of time on it.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 August 2016 - 02:04 PM, said:

The alpha I could handle. If I have a mech with 2 UAC10s and a handful of other weapons. I can't even double tap my UAC10s without incurring bonus heat, let alone think about firing my other weapons.

And honestly, if you think the game is better served to be a PPFLD poke fest then that is your prerogative, but most would disagree. In order to bring out brawling you can't just stare and fire hot weapons. That's how you die. If you were to read Tarogatos post there is nothing about not being able to alpha. So its pretty clear that you haven't read it, so why don't you do that instead of trying to insult me.

I did read it, and I understand that that's not what Tarogatos is implying, but like it's been specified countless times that rebalancing weapons and their draw values will fix mixed builds and boating. You can't use the base system right now to predict that it won't work.

Also because we've been so used to ghost heat balance for the last few years, we've forgotten that the system had huge flaws which ended up becoming the current meta builds, namely boating different class lasers, as ghost heat identifies large lasers and medium lasers as different groups. Which is what ED is intended to fix.

The one thing I really agree with is that we have no way of knowing what the draw value of each weapon is, although at least we have some form of visual input now, unlike GH, which had no way of informing you how it would affect your build.

Sorry for the earlier post, I'm not sure why I even posted it in this thread, I guess I was tired of the baseless complaints on other threads and on facebook.

[Chados]

The Infowar and laser-lock changes that were the feature of the last PTS didn't make it onto the live server. The only thing from that whole test that made it into the game was the colorblind reticle fix, as I recall. And I believe Russ has said that if the power draw feature doesn't work, it won't go live. I take him at his word.

[Gas Guzzler]

Chados, on 20 August 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

But isn't that why they're *testing* it? To *see* if they can fix the problems with it using this mechanic?

Sure, I'm willing to test it, but that doesn't mean his assessment of what is on there now is wrong, or that what we have on the live server is actually pretty good is wrong either. The more iterations they do on the test server, the more likely it is that the system will get to the point where it is just okay, and at that point, with so much time put into it it will go live, even if it isn't as good as what is live currently.

[Gas Guzzler]

Gentleman Reaper, on 20 August 2016 - 02:17 PM, said:

I did read it, and I understand that that's not what Tarogatos is implying, but like it's been specified countless times that rebalancing weapons and their draw values will fix mixed builds and boating. You can't use the base system right now to predict that it won't work.

Also because we've been so used to ghost heat balance for the last few years, we've forgotten that the system had huge flaws which ended up becoming the current meta builds, namely boating different class lasers, as ghost heat identifies large lasers and medium lasers as different groups. Which is what ED is intended to fix.

How will messing with energy draw values encourage mixed builds? It will only cause people to boat whatever is most efficient at killing mechs.

I don't buy into the whole "mixing medium and large class lasers is so terrible" camp. It allows mechs that don't have a lot of pod space to do decent damage. Yes they can alpha twice before having to only shoot part of their weapons, but if the team pushes, they are at a huge disadvantage and end up brawling with only their LPLs. On IS mechs on ED, they can simply boat the larger class lasers. The duration is short enough, but PPCs and other weapons are better. For Clan mechs though, there isn't alot they can do with lasers, so if your Clan assault mech doesn't have a lot of tonnage... tough.

Then it gets to the issue of the UAC10s... that weapon can't really function in a pair with other non AC weapons, which sucks for mechs like the ON1 IIC, and likely the MAD-IIC as well (where dual gauss + ER PPC will work fine...)

[Cy Mitchell]

I find it interesting that many of the people who I have seen mock Ghost Heat on the forums, reddit, on streams and in game for the last seven months that I have been back are now the same people that are fighting so hard to keep it. I guess they have found the loopholes and established their comfort zone. Or maybe they are just so convinced that PGI will get anything they do so wrong that they are willing to keep the system that they complained about being lame for so long.

And just to be clear, I am fine with either Ghost Heat or Energy Draw or whatever other system is invented as long as it includes progressive incremental negative consequences for abusing the heat scale. Any system that does not do that will be a fail IMO. Russ has said that it can be added to this system which is a big reason why I support it and an investing the time to test it.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 August 2016 - 02:20 PM, said:

Sure, I'm willing to test it, but that doesn't mean his assessment of what is on there now is wrong, or that what we have on the live server is actually pretty good is wrong either. The more iterations they do on the test server, the more likely it is that the system will get to the point where it is just okay, and at that point, with so much time put into it it will go live, even if it isn't as good as what is live currently.

I understand, and I agree that ED won't be well balanced for a while, but you've been against the system before we even knew all the details. You were thumping your chest that the system would be broken because it was PGI's idea, and you even made it a point of putting #SayNOtoEnergyDrawandYEStoGameBalance as your signature, which doesn't instill confidence that you're looking at the system with a level head.

I might have high expectations of ED, but that's because I've been tired of the same balance for the last two years, a shakeup of the meta is exactly what I've been waiting for to get fully into the game again. I'm also excited as to the possibilities of ED to properly balance Clan vs IS tech.

If the system ends up failing, then that's that, but I'm willing to give it a chance before I judge it.

[Gas Guzzler]

Gentleman Reaper, on 20 August 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

I understand, and I agree that ED won't be well balanced for a while, but you've been against the system before we even knew all the details. You were thumping your chest that the system would be broken because it was PGI's idea, and you even made it a point of putting #SayNOtoEnergyDrawandYEStoGameBalance as your signature, which doesn't instill confidence that you're looking at the system with a level head.

I might have high expectations of ED, but that's because I've been tired of the same balance for the last two years, a shakeup of the meta is exactly what I've been waiting for to get fully into the game again. I'm also excited as to the possibilities of ED to properly balance Clan vs IS tech.

If the system ends up failing, then that's that, but I'm willing to give it a chance before I judge it.

Its not because PGI is developing it, its because the goal was to limit alphas and tie all weapons to the same damage limit. I promise you I certainly am looking at it with a level head.

As far as shaking up the meta goes, the "meta" is the most diverse that its been since I started playing this game, and is considerably less interesting on the PTS than it is on the live servers.

But seriously, I have even admitted in my feedback thread that the system is better than I expected, it just still has issues to the point of not being an improvement over the live version. It is better in some ways, but not in others, and what is most important to me is a wide and diverse "meta", combined with thought intensive gameplay. I don't want to be running around mindlessly mashing mouse buttons cycling through my weapons giving no thought to positioning or torso twisting, nor do I want to just load every mech up with PPCs and Gauss rifles and play poke fest.

I'm willing to test every iteration that PGI puts out, and will be happy to admit it is good when it is actually good. But right now, I'm very skeptical about how it is going to work out... there is a group of players that don't want to worry about torso twisting and would rather have a continuous slug fest firing 1 or 2 weapons at a time, and that type of gameplay doesn't appeal to me.. So if that is the direction PGI wants to go, I will definitely be offering negative feed back regarding it. As it stands now, I like what is on the live servers more because of the variety that we have. I can choose almost any loadout that makes some degree of sense and hop in a match a slug it out and come out having fun and doing fine. I like that, personally.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 August 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

How will messing with energy draw values encourage mixed builds? It will only cause people to boat whatever is most efficient at killing mechs.

This logic is applied to any form of balance. This is exactly how MWO has been since the beginning, after a meta is nerfed people look for the next one, the fact is that every consecutive time the next meta will be less powerful.

Quote

I don't buy into the whole "mixing medium and large class lasers is so terrible" camp. It allows mechs that don't have a lot of pod space to do decent damage. Yes they can alpha twice before having to only shoot part of their weapons, but if the team pushes, they are at a huge disadvantage and end up brawling with only their LPLs. On IS mechs on ED, they can simply boat the larger class lasers. The duration is short enough, but PPCs and other weapons are better. For Clan mechs though, there isn't alot they can do with lasers, so if your Clan assault mech doesn't have a lot of tonnage... tough.

Then it gets to the issue of the UAC10s... that weapon can't really function in a pair with other non AC weapons, which sucks for mechs like the ON1 IIC, and likely the MAD-IIC as well (where dual gauss + ER PPC will work fine...)

These are issues with those specific Omnimechs and UACs in general, if you try to balance it around those omnimechs, then it becomes too powerful for every other mech. Omnimechs with low pod-space need large quirks to stay competitive, there's no other way about it.

Meanwhile with UACs, they will never be balanced while we have this random element to it, as it makes it too unpredictable for mechs using a single one, while mechs that can boat multiple UACs will never have all of them jam at once, making them far too powerful. UACs need a serious rework so that we have a somewhat consistent, but lower, DPS. I hope that this test will finally get PGI to fix them.

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 20 August 2016 - 03:06 PM.

[Gyrok]

Chados, on 20 August 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Look, Gas, I get where you're coming from. But you, Tarogato, and a lot of other folks who take this position are coming from a place that says that what is on PTS right now is what is going on the live server. And that isn't what Russ said. It isn't what any of them said. My point is that it's too early to call this concept a loser.

On the other thread you said my comments had no value because I hadn't played the PTS. You don't have to play the PTS to see an invalid criticism. It isn't valid to strike out this change when every weapon is drawing exactly the same amount of power right now. If they get to the third or fourth iteration of this thing and it isn't getting better, that the time to get worried. Not four days into the test program. That's *my* point. And I don't think that's an unfair position to take. Tarogato's criticisms are based on a perception that what is on PTS right now is what is going live. One of his unit mates in the other thread posted what I thought was a thoughtful support of his position without downing the whole system-that guy doesn't think any amount of tuning is going to fix the underlying problems in balancing. And he might be right. But PGI is at least making a real, public, transparent attempt to address the problems. That, at least, ought to get some respect.

I am coming from a place where I can see what is POSSIBLE under this new system...and I can also see that it DOES NOT, in fact, accomplish what the community thinks it will.

In fact, it will ENCOURAGE, what they are trying to get rid of in the long run.

Gentleman Reaper, on 20 August 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Oh no! I can't fire all my weapons at once, I have to do like the scrubs and fire my weapons in different groups a split second later.

This is what I get from all this whining. Most of the issues he brought forward can be fixed by adjusting the draw values on individual weapons, as well as increasing the heat penalties. None of my heavy and assault mechs play any differently because I ALWAYS fire in groups, so it's obvious that people are whining because they can't alpha everything every few seconds.

Let me ask you a question.

What does preventing an alpha strike accomplish in your mind?