241 replies to this topic

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

The new Erectile Dysfunction mechanic looks promisingly frustrating and convoluted.

I can't wait to see how bad it gets 3 months from now just in time for Xmas. That's usually how these "cycles" go.

Also PPC adjustments mean **** when they only register half the time... another long known issue PGI's never touched because who cares about hit registry when you're drooling over your monthly new shiny mech cockpit.

Edited by lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol, 03 September 2016 - 08:32 AM.

[Appogee]

This new system is just getting way too complicated.

[AnTi90d]

Appogee, on 03 September 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

This new system is just getting way too complicated.

I called it, the 2nd day, after watching 5+ hours of different streamers testing it and ~2 hours testing it, myself.

http://mwomercs.com/...the-pts-though/

[Reno Blade]

I think, on paper these numbers would look a bit better:

Proposed weapon stats, (change to PTS3)
PPC 10 dmg, 9 heat, 11 draw, 5s cd (-1 heat, +1 draw)
isERPPC 10 dmg, 12 heat, 12 draw, 5s cd (-1.5 heat, +2 draw)
cERPPC 13 dmg, 15 heat, 15 draw, 6s cd (-2 dmg, -0.8s cd)
Gauss 15dmg, 1 heat, 18 draw, 7s cd
LL 9 dmg, 7 heat, 8.1 draw, 1.15 duration, 3.25s cd (+1 dmg, +0.9 draw)
ERLL 9 dmg, 8 heat, 8.1 draw, 1.30 duration, 3.25s cd (+1 dmg, +0.9 draw)
cERLL 10 dmg, 9 heat, 9 draw, 1.50 duration, 3.25s cd (-1 heat)
LP 10 dmg, 7 heat, 9 draw, 0.8 duration, 3.25s cd (+1 dmg, +0.9 draw)
cLP 12 dmg, 10 heat, 10.8 draw, 1.20 duration, 3.25s cd(+1 dmg, +0.9 draw)

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Reno Blade, on 03 September 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

I think, on paper these numbers would look a bit better:

Proposed weapon stats, (change to PTS3)
PPC 10 dmg, 9 heat, 11 draw, 5s cd (-1 heat, +1 draw)
isERPPC 10 dmg, 12 heat, 12 draw, 5s cd (-1.5 heat, +2 draw)
cERPPC 13 dmg, 15 heat, 15 draw, 6s cd (-2 dmg, -0.8s cd)
Gauss 15dmg, 1 heat, 18 draw, 7s cd
LL 9 dmg, 7 heat, 8.1 draw, 1.15 duration, 3.25s cd (+1 dmg, +0.9 draw)
ERLL 9 dmg, 8 heat, 8.1 draw, 1.30 duration, 3.25s cd (+1 dmg, +0.9 draw)
cERLL 10 dmg, 9 heat, 9 draw, 1.50 duration, 3.25s cd (-1 heat)
LP 10 dmg, 7 heat, 9 draw, 0.8 duration, 3.25s cd (+1 dmg, +0.9 draw)
cLP 12 dmg, 10 heat, 10.8 draw, 1.20 duration, 3.25s cd(+1 dmg, +0.9 draw)

I do like the PPC changes you have there, I still think the duration for LL's need to go down due to an IS LL will be out traded by a single cERML. IS LL needs to have a shorter duration. I propose IS LL's have a burn time of .95s, IS ML have a .85s burn time, and ISSL keep their .85 burn time. This increases the DPS of the IS LL to what it was and allows it to out trade clan ERML's as they can fire and pull back before the enemy ERML fully burns. Though, still doesn't address the fact that Clan ER ML's do 7 instead of 6 damage which is a problem.

[Spleenslitta]

No matter how much you adjust ED i find it to be a boring system that doesn't do much to make MWO stand out more as a robot shooter.
I think a more advanced system that would take longer to develop is necessary. There are heaps of far more advanced ideas all over this feedback forum.

[Zionkan]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 03 September 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

I do like the PPC changes you have there, I still think the duration for LL's need to go down due to an IS LL will be out traded by a single cERML. IS LL needs to have a shorter duration. I propose IS LL's have a burn time of .95s, IS ML have a .85s burn time, and ISSL keep their .85 burn time. This increases the DPS of the IS LL to what it was and allows it to out trade clan ERML's as they can fire and pull back before the enemy ERML fully burns. Though, still doesn't address the fact that Clan ER ML's do 7 instead of 6 damage which is a problem.

I would tone down the dmg of other laser instead.
6 dmg 5 heat cerml, 7dmg 5 heat cmpl. 5dmg 4 heat ml, 6 dmg 4 heat mpl.
4 dmg 3 heat cersl. 5 dmg 3 heat cspl, keep is s and is spl as is (sidenote is spl would become best heat/dmg energy).

Edited by Zionkan, 04 September 2016 - 04:13 AM.

[Ultimax]

I wasn't particularly happy with the laser changes currently for PTS 3.

I feel the large class lasers were mostly nerfed in order to gain what is a functionally unusable amount of energy draw discount that really does not make the trade off worth it.


I also reviewed the small & medium class laser changes, and only a few of them actually receive a usable buff - the others weren't nerfed per say but the net change was basically a wash as a discount on e-draw that doesn't allow you to actually use more weapons is irrelevant to how the game is actually played.


So what I've done is set E-draw back to 1:1 ratio (Damage:ED) for nearly all lasers, and then baked some buffs directly into the lasers themselves where it felt needed.


I also tried to balance IS vs. Clan lasers as best as I could, so please look at all of the weapons for a total picture.

For example, the CLPL functions more like a heavier, improved IS LLAS - that's its closest competitor.

The CMPLs function more like lighter weight, shorter ranged IS LPLS that trade heat efficiency and range for an amazing tonnage advantage.


Looking for comments and feedback on these numbers, as long as they are within the context that energy draw will go live - and keeping in mind how these weapons will now be used once the system is live, and how they compete vs. other existing weapons in the big picture of all weapons in game.





Link to table: https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing



SMALL AND MEDIUM CLASS LASERS

IS SLAS

• Increased range to 150m

IS SPL

• Increased range to 125m
  
• Reduced E-draw to 3.5 (safe alpha of 32 points of damage from 8x SPLs)

IS MLAS

• Increased range to 300m
  
• Reduced heat from 4 to 3

IS MPLS

• Increased range to 250m
  
• Reduced heat from 4 to 3
  
• Reduced CD from 3s to 2.75s
  
• Reduced E-draw from 6 to 5 (safe alpha of 36 points of damage from 6x MPLs)

CERMLAS

• Reduced range to 400m (from 405M)
  
• Increased beam duration to 1.1s (Down from 1.15 on live)
  
• Increased CD from 3s to 3.25s
  
• Reduced damage from 7 to 6
  
• Reduced heat from 6 to 5.5

CMPL

• Increased range to 350m
  
• Reduced beam duration to 0.75 (from 0.85s on live)
  
• Decreased E-draw from 8 to 7 (allows safe alpha of 32 points of damage from 4x CMPLs)

LARGE CLASS LASERS

IS LLAS

• Reduced CD to 3.1s
  
• Increased Range to 500m

IS ERLLAS

• Increased CD to 3.3s from 3.25s
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.25s to 1.2s

IS LPL

• Increased range to 375m
  
• Reduced beam duration to 0.65s from 0.67s

CERLLAS

• Increased range to 775m
  
• Reduced damage from 11 to 10
  
• Reduced heat from 10 to 9.5
  
• Increased CD to 3.7s from 3.25s
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.5s to 1.35s

CLPL

• Decreased range from 600m to 500m
  
• Decreased damage from 13 to 10
  
• Decreased heat from 10 to 8
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.12s to 1s

Edited by Ultimax, 05 September 2016 - 07:49 AM.

[-Skyrider-]

the C-ERPPC cooldown is a bit too long, shouldn't be more than 6 seconds

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

Ultimax, on 04 September 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

SMALL AND MEDIUM CLASS LASERS

IS SLAS

• Increased range to 150m

IS SPL

• Increased range to 125m
  
• Reduced E-draw to 3.5 (safe alpha of 32 points of damage from 8x SPLs)

IS MLAS

• Increased range to 300m
  
• Reduced heat from 4 to 3

IS MPLS

• Increased range to 250m
  
• Reduced heat from 4 to 3
  
• Reduced CD from 3s to 2.75s
  
• Reduced E-draw from 6 to 5 (safe alpha of 36 points of damage from 6x MPLs)

CERMLAS

• Reduced range to 400m (from 405M)
  
• Increased beam duration to 1.1s (Down from 1.15 on live)
  
• Increased CD from 3s to 3.25s

CMPL

• Increased range to 350m
  
• Reduced beam duration to 0.75 (from 0.85s on live)
  
• Decreased E-draw from 8 to 7 (allows safe alpha of 32 points of damage from 4x CMPLs)

LARGE CLASS LASERS

IS LLAS

• Reduced CD to 3.1s

IS ERLLAS

• Increased CD to 3.3s from 3.25s
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.25s to 1.2s

IS LPL

• Increased range to 375m
  
• Reduced CD to 2.75s from 3s
  
• Reduced beam duration to 0.65s from 0.67s

CERLLAS

• Increased range to 775m
  
• Reduced damage from 11 to 10
  
• Reduced heat from 10 to 9.5
  
• Increased CD to 3.7s from 3.25s
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.5s to 1.35s

CLPL

• Decreased range from 600m to 550m
  
• Decreased damage from 13 to 10
  
• Decreased heat from 10 to 8
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.12s to 1.1s

Your post is well thought out. Kudos.

Just a few things I'd like to say --> IS LPLs don't need a beam duration reduction, they already have very high burn DPS. (Unless you're talking about 9 damage LPLs here)

Also, this is just as "complicated" as ghost heat.

Edited by Keshav Murali, 04 September 2016 - 04:58 PM.

[DrxAbstract]

Ultimax, on 04 September 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

I wasn't particularly happy with the laser changes currently for PTS 3.

I feel the large class lasers were mostly nerfed in order to gain what is a functionally unusable amount of energy draw discount that really does not make the trade off worth it.


I also reviewed the small & medium class laser changes, and only a few of them actually receive a usable buff - the others weren't nerfed per say but the net change was basically a wash as a discount on e-draw that doesn't allow you to actually use more weapons is irrelevant to how the game is actually played.


So what I've done is set E-draw back to 1:1 ratio (Damage:ED) for nearly all lasers, and then baked some buffs directly into the lasers themselves where it felt needed.


I also tried to balance IS vs. Clan lasers as best as I could, so please look at all of the weapons for a total picture.

For example, the CLPL functions more like a heavier, improved IS LLAS - that's its closest competitor.

The CMPLs function more like lighter weight, shorter ranged IS LPLS that trade heat efficiency and range for an amazing tonnage advantage.


Looking for comments and feedback on these numbers, as long as they are within the context that energy draw will go live - and keeping in mind how these weapons will now be used once the system is live, and how they compete vs. other existing weapons in the big picture of all weapons in game.









SMALL AND MEDIUM CLASS LASERS

IS SLAS

• Increased range to 150m

IS SPL

• Increased range to 125m
  
• Reduced E-draw to 3.5 (safe alpha of 32 points of damage from 8x SPLs)

IS MLAS

• Increased range to 300m
  
• Reduced heat from 4 to 3

IS MPLS

• Increased range to 250m
  
• Reduced heat from 4 to 3
  
• Reduced CD from 3s to 2.75s
  
• Reduced E-draw from 6 to 5 (safe alpha of 36 points of damage from 6x MPLs)

CERMLAS

• Reduced range to 400m (from 405M)
  
• Increased beam duration to 1.1s (Down from 1.15 on live)
  
• Increased CD from 3s to 3.25s

CMPL

• Increased range to 350m
  
• Reduced beam duration to 0.75 (from 0.85s on live)
  
• Decreased E-draw from 8 to 7 (allows safe alpha of 32 points of damage from 4x CMPLs)

LARGE CLASS LASERS

IS LLAS

• Reduced CD to 3.1s

IS ERLLAS

• Increased CD to 3.3s from 3.25s
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.25s to 1.2s

IS LPL

• Increased range to 375m
  
• Reduced CD to 2.75s from 3s
  
• Reduced beam duration to 0.65s from 0.67s

CERLLAS

• Increased range to 775m
  
• Reduced damage from 11 to 10
  
• Reduced heat from 10 to 9.5
  
• Increased CD to 3.7s from 3.25s
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.5s to 1.35s

CLPL

• Decreased range from 600m to 550m
  
• Decreased damage from 13 to 10
  
• Decreased heat from 10 to 8
  
• Reduced beam duration from 1.12s to 1.1s

Nobody would use IS LL/ER LL or Clan ER LL with those changes; the IS LPL and Clan LPL would be clear choices for performing at average engagement distances. The Clan LPL is simply too good, and could do with a max range reduction to 400 or 425 - It doesnt need to be any further than that, and would make a clear distinction of mid-range and long-range for choosing what to use between Clan LPL and Clan ER LL... And that Clan ER LL cooldown is debilitatingly excessive.

[Ultimax]

Keshav Murali, on 04 September 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Your post is well thought out. Kudos.

Just a few things I'd like to say --> IS LPLs don't need a beam duration reduction, they already have very high burn DPS. (Unless you're talking about 9 damage LPLs here)

The beam reduction was minimal, 0.02s. Just to have it not end in 0.67s and to nudge the other numbers a touch.

Keshav Murali, on 04 September 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Also, this is just as "complicated" as ghost heat.

My number changes? They have nothing to do with the system or how well it's understood - it's simply weapons balancing that could happen with or without e-draw.

DrxAbstract, on 04 September 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

Nobody would use IS LL/ER LL or Clan ER LL with those changes; the IS LPL and Clan LPL would be clear choices for performing at average engagement distances. The Clan LPL is simply too good, and could do with a max range reduction to 400 or 425 - It doesnt need to be any further than that, and would make a clear distinction of mid-range and long-range for choosing what to use between Clan LPL and Clan ER LL... And that Clan ER LL cooldown is debilitatingly excessive.

You would use the IS LLAS when you have less tonnage or want more range.

You would use the CERLLAS when you have less tonnage or want more range (225m extra optimal range is huge).


3x CERLLAS could be fired with no energy draw penalty, 30 damage at 775m for a build investment of 12 tons.

DrxAbstract, on 04 September 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

The Clan LPL is simply too good, and could do with a max range reduction to 400 or 425 - It doesnt need to be any further than that

That would make it the same range as the IS LPL, except with worse stats elsewhere. That's not a realistic option, and neither is outright cloning the weapon from one faction to another.

[Kmieciu]

Prosperity Park, on 01 September 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Yeah, but do we need to "test" how balanced the PPCs will be in this situation? I mean, the 12 ton / 4 slot CERPPC setup seems so much better than the 21 tons / 9 slots of IS PPC needed to accomplish the same damage, heat, and energy draw that I don't think there's any need to "test" it.

Quoted for truth.
In order to achieve balance, Clan ERPPC needs to be an objectively worse weapon than IS PPC, simply because it weights less and takes less slots. This is somehow hard to grasp for Table Top fanatics, but pretty obvious for anyone that has any clue about game design.

[Karl Streiger]

Appogee, on 03 September 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

This new system is just getting way too complicated.

This.... the dart board is strong in this system, again

It looks promising (not o be as random as gh) at first with "three simple rules" now we have again individual adjustments that can change from patch to patch.

This won't fix anything but creating "balance by coincidence" - or "balance by people become old to track stuff"


I repeat myself as i do repeat since day one of Heat Scale - I know what you try to achieve but you already have a limiting system - called heat & ammunition.

Considering the time in development/fixing of heat scale and now Energy draw they could have fixed the real underlying problem.

And one of those underlying problems: tell me why is the Allrounder (2AC5 2PPC the better sniper in comparison with a 4 PPC mech)

[impar]

Appogee, on 03 September 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

This new system is just getting way too complicated.

So true.

Try explaining it to a new player. You cant.

The main purpose of the energy draw seems to be to increase the TTK. You could easily do that by tweaking the heat and cooldown mechanics. Less heat capacity, more cooldown.
Adding a new mechanic on top makes no sense at all.

Again:
Try explaining it to a new player. You cant.

And you wonder why the player base is stagnant\diminishing...

[DrxAbstract]

Ultimax, on 04 September 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

You would use the IS LLAS when you have less tonnage or want more range.

You would use the CERLLAS when you have less tonnage or want more range (225m extra optimal range is huge).

3x CERLLAS could be fired with no energy draw penalty, 30 damage at 775m for a build investment of 12 tons.

That would make it the same range as the IS LPL, except with worse stats elsewhere. That's not a realistic option, and neither is outright cloning the weapon from one faction to another.

Sigh... I'm really not in the mood to hunt down every piece of forum post that sinks your battleship. Suffice to say if you think "If you have X tonnage, want X range, etc." is more a deciding factor than weapon cooldown and beam duration then dont be shocked when people load up IS LPLs and Clan LPLs, because "30 damage at 775 Optimal Range for 12 tons" isnt nearly as "huge" in practice as it is on paper.

[Ironically Ironclad Irony]

*if* this gets implemented it will be interesting to see how it affects class selection, because suddenly the learning curve and comfort zone for many players may shift to single grouping of 30-ish damage on an agile chassis so that you don't blow youself up shooting your wad or extending your face time timing your firing groups. Lights and fast mediums may actually gain popularity with these changes.

There'll be pros in heavy/assault mechs, don't worry, but for newbies and button mashers...

Edited by Ironically Ironclad Irony, 05 September 2016 - 06:54 AM.

[TankBadger42]

I'd be happy for it to hit live as is.
I'd still hate the loss of changing and the hard cap to gauss AC-5 over nerf (2 sec cooldown would have been fine), PPCs min range and non-scaling U-AC penalties.
Everything else just needs tweaks, and they need data from live to balance all that.

I'd love to see IS streeks, LBX and U-AC in the full range of sizes but I'm sure that will come with time

[Gentleman Reaper]

impar, on 05 September 2016 - 03:13 AM, said:

Try explaining it to a new player. You cant.

Put draw and heat charts in the weapon groups part of mechbay, BAM!, done. People get a UI element, they can set more efficient groups, infinitely better than with both GH and even without.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Kmieciu, on 05 September 2016 - 12:07 AM, said:

Quoted for truth.
In order to achieve balance, Clan ERPPC needs to be an objectively worse weapon than IS PPC, simply because it weights less and takes less slots. This is somehow hard to grasp for Table Top fanatics, but pretty obvious for anyone that has any clue about game design.

No it doesn't

(Pre-PTS 3, because my ability to test as been super limited) The IS faction has numerous weapons that are inherently better than their clan counterparts. Clans have a select few weapons that are inherently better, ie the cERPPC, small lasers, debatably medium lasers, and the Gauss rifle just for weight, but in exchange most of their stuff is a ton or so lighter.

The IS's weapons shouldn't all be marginally better because they all cost marginally more weight. It's okay for their to be a few outliers that are lighter and better, that's just one faction's advantage.

Personally I think that if the IS is really too weak we should start with addressing the fragility of their XL engines. A faction that has heavier equipment at least needs to be able to mount XL engines so they can bring enough of their guns to have an effect on the battlefield.