3 replies to this topic

[East Indy]

This is a prose version of something I sent to Russ via Twitter (good for getting attention, not-so-good for explaining).

PTS 3 has accelerated a series of changes to individual weapons. In the announcement thread, I saw a conversation in which one player noted that autocannon/PPC alphas weren't nearly as effective due to the low rate of fire. And while, yes, that may be true, it's drifting from purpose.

Over the last 3 years, in order to solve the problem of high alphas harming game pacing and style choices — part and parcel to any BattleTech translation — PGI has made multiple indirect nerfs. Class I and II jump jets were weakened, duration for lasers was increased, and velocity for projectiles was lowered to both desync and increase difficulty of leading targets. (Heat Scale was intended to be a direct nerf, but only partially solved the problem.)

I can respect indirect nerfs. Devs in all companies do this all the time. Ideally, it stops the player behavior in question, and preserves most of the original ruleset.

In MWO's case, however, the indirect nerfs didn't stop that behavior. And with PTS 3's attention away from Energy Draw — the intended replacement for Heat Scale — and back on indirect nerfs with PPC/Gauss RoF and now laser duration, produce the same outcome.

The whole point of an Energy Draw-like system is to take weapons that are by themselves very powerful, and introduce diminishing returns. As a result, one Gauss rifle or one AC/20 feels great to use, 'Mechs with limited hardpoints can compete, and players are thinking about supplementary weapons instead of Feels Great Weapon * x.

The design direction PTS 3 perpetuates is that if weapons are weakened enough, it won't matter how many you try to alpha together. And I think that's not the way to go. Like any indirect nerfs, it simply invites players to find a new combination of weapons to continue in problem behavior, especially because the top-level control function of Energy Draw isn't as airtight as it should be.

Powerful weapons, diminishing returns for multiples. That's all this has ever been about. Energy Draw can accomplish that, but it needs to be the focus for the PTS session.

[JadeWolf01]

Yes. Exactly.

[Reno Blade]

You are mostly talking about the reduced dmg and draw of large laser class, right?
It certainly is more costly (tonnage wise) to have same dmg in large laser boat now.
If we consider boating only LL/LP, it's definitely not the best tonnage investment now in PTS3.

Using other weapons (SRM6, LRM10 or LBX/AC10) instead of more LL/LP seems to be more efficient.
Maybe thats what the idea was behind the "nerf".

But I also think it would be better to have strong Large weapons with more downsides.
e.g. more dmg, but more draw and more duration to balance.
Ofc the 1:1 or 1:0.9 Dmg/Draw approach limits the option to increase Draw too much.

But in the end, we could have LL with 9dmg, 8.1 draw and 1.3 sec beam duration or something where it still feels stronger than a ML+20%.

It's a small degree between too low and too high for all of the stats. Duration is particularly unpopular if it's too long.

my proposal in another thread:

Reno Blade, on 03 September 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

maybe closer to these numbers?

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, 14 heat, 15 draw, 6s cd (-2 dmg, -0.8s cd, -1 heat)
Gauss 15dmg, 3 heat, 18 draw, 7s cd (+2 heat)
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)

[Ultimax]

East Indy, on 02 September 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

The whole point of an Energy Draw-like system is to take weapons that are by themselves very powerful, and introduce diminishing returns. As a result, one Gauss rifle or one AC/20 feels great to use, 'Mechs with limited hardpoints can compete, and players are thinking about supplementary weapons instead of Feels Great Weapon * x.

This will never happen in a game with double max armor on every single mech.

A single Gauss Rifle is supposed to be a powerful weapon, in this game a single Gauss Rifle is barely half of a build.
No one fears a mech with a single Gauss Rifle or a single AC 20 at all.

This is because, contrary to popular belief, mechs in this game are actually really survivable compared to weapons.


The problem is player ego, and misconceptions.

There is a large contingent of players here, who want to be playing a PvE game.


Those kinds of games protect frail egos, they let you be the hero - they are designed for you to win.



PvP is generally zero sum. There is a winning team and a losing team at the end of nearly all matches.


The PvE contingent does not like this, low skill PvP players do not like this (as they end up on the losing side more than the winning side) - even mediocre PvP players will often complain about the game "setting them up to lose" (again because they are not winning more than they are losing, even if they break even).


So the game is constantly getting feedback from those contingents on how their mechs aren't survivable enough.

In order to achieve what you describe, diminishing returns would need to be extremely severe for multiple weapons systems - but mech survivability would also need to go so low that getting hit with one or two gauss shots basically ends your match.

Edited by Ultimax, 05 September 2016 - 02:55 PM.