125 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Sephrus Shanadar, on 12 September 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

The real eye opener was the decrease in spread of the lrm20 to just 1 meter more than the lrm5.

Yes, yes. The salt must flow.

I've been saying they need to do that for a while. LRMs are a mess on the live servers, with significant, undocumented variances in behaviors between launchers - not to mention tube limits on individual hardpoints. Of course, I wanted them to increase the spread of smaller launchers, but normalizing launcher spread will make getting the weapon system balanced properly much, much easier.

[Void Angel]

InnerSphereNews, on 12 September 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Weapon Changes

Gauss Rifles
With the heaver restrictions on Heat Thresholds in this update, we are re-introducing the Charge mechanic for Gauss Rifles and bringing the Energy Consumption values down to their original 1:1 values.


• Charge mechanic has been restored.


• Energy Consumption decreased to 15 (from 18).


• Cooldown Duration decreased to 6 (from 6.71).

However....

I'm not a fan of the charge mechanic. It was useful to delink its alpha strike capabilities from other weapons under the Heat Scale system, but Energy Draw is designed to control alphas organically. It seems to me that balancing Gauss Rifles based on cooldown, projectile speed, and draw adjustments (different ED values from actual damage) will be more intuitive for players and streamline the balancing process.

Edited by Void Angel, 12 September 2016 - 11:44 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Void Angel, on 12 September 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

However....

I'm sad about this. It's an artifact of attempting to curb alphas via the heat system instead of the damage system, though (or, in this particular case, using both), as the GR becomes very good when heat is the real limiting factor.

Still, I dislike the Gauss charge as a mechanic. I'm fine with it in personal usage, but I think it makes the weapon unreasonably difficult for newer players to use and doesn't really add much to the game, without actually nerfing it for more experienced players at all.

But with that said, I'm also not really interested in arguing about how the GR should be. I'll use it, or not, based on whether or not I can make it work for me.

[Sereglach]

HOLY HELL!! Those are some promising changes. I'll certainly be running some tests and giving feedback this go-round, once I can (probably tomorrow or very late tonight at earliest . . . lots going on in personal life this week). Initial thoughts, though:

- Again, bring the Flamer into Energy Draw and fix it. You're making some awesome changes that make sense . . . this should be another of those changes. Solid feedback has been left on this prospect regardless of whether ED recharge pauses while weapons are firing or if it's constant recharge even while weapons are firing. Just do it already! Test it, PLEASE!!! 1.0 DPS, 2.0 HDPS, 1.0 HPS, either 1.0 EDPS (if charging stops while firing) or 5.0 EDPS (if charging continues while firing). It's an excellent way to go for the weapon system and brings it in with everything else in one unified set of functionality.

- LRM changes are excellent and absolutely moving in the right direction. I'd prefer all of the missile-groupings to be closer to the LRM/10's old base. However, given some of the other tweaks being made, here, it still might be a very solid push to normalizing the power of LRM's. A LOT of testing will be required for this (and probably more balancing even after things go live). Regardless, absolutely movement in the right direction.

- Laser changes look like more movement in the right direction, but I don't think Pulse Lasers go far enough to make them more distinct. Cut the Duration, Recharge, and Damage of all the Pulse Lasers by another 50%, but only cut the heat by about 30%. Make them serious laser MG's, like they are from lore, that provide rapid pinpoint damage where you want it, but with very high heat. We're moving in the right direction, but not quite there, yet. Otherwise I think the other lasers are absolutely moving in the right direction. The big kicker is making sure that the C-ERML doesn't absolutely obsolete the IS LL like it does in TT rules.

- PPC Changes are interesting . . . especially for the IS ERPPC. The C-ERPPC change did seem over the top, and apparently the metrics said so, too. Now just up the velocity on these things so you don't need a chassis with +50% velocity quirks for them to be worth something.

- UAC Mechanics are a thankful shift in the right direction. Normalized Jam chance with dynamic jam times is the far better route. However, the jam times on the UAC 10 & 20 might be too much (10s loss of a serious brawling weapon is painful, if not fatal). It seems more like they should be a bit less, closer to 2x standard weapon cycle time . . . more like the UAC 2 & 5.

- Gauss . . . get rid of the charge mechanic, leave the ED higher with the modestly higher cooldown, remove the artificial equipping cap, and let ED do the rest. Charging merely invites macros to circumvent the mechanic. Keeping the energy draw high with lower heat thresholds will naturally enforce stagger-fire on large quantities of gauss rifles.

- Speaking of Heat Thresholds, the new Heat Sink mechanic looks wonderful right off the bat. SHS might be more useful for alpha-based builds, and DHS are better for DPS. Possibly consider pushing the heat cap of SHS higher . . . maybe make the cap 1.5 per heat sink with .12 cooling (numbers "balance out" between SHS and DHS, then) to enforce this difference and provide distinct usefulness to the two heat sink types.

I very much look forward to testing these changes. Again, get the Flamer changes in there, too, and we're in serious business. Glad to finally see PGI looking to do serious weapon balance.

[Glaive-]

Bleh, I had a feeling deep down that the charge mechanic would resurface before these Public Tests were over with.
Other than that, seems like a mostly decent update. The heatsink and heatcap changes are most interesting imo


PPC changes are understandable, but I would have opted for more visual ECM effects from the PPCs, rather than simply increased duration.

The Laser changes seem a little odd to me. Will have to test them out. I feel like weapon normalizations never really work out well. Longer burn time on the small and med pulse lasers doesn't seem right to me. I do like the shorter burn time but longer cooldown on the (C)ER lasers, although as others have said, this willl probably just make poke matches even more prevalent.

The LRM changes are SO long overdue, and they probably won't be enough, but it's a step in the right direction.

Can't help but be a little salty over the UAC changes, although I guess the changes aren't all bad.
Not a fan of the higher jam chances on the lighter UACs, but atleast they get short jam durations now..
Will have to test those out for sure.

[Freebrewer Bmore]

All this game really needs to be vastly more compelling is fresh combat situations.

It's sad to see this energy being spent on reinventing basic mechanics that may be imperfect but are still quite tolerable. What's becoming intolerable to me is the same old routine in every match: same maps, same starting locations, same inevitable few combat locations, same simplistic gamemodes, same few tactics. That's what's sucking the game experience dry, and ED won't solve it, no matter how well balanced it ever manages to be.

The way to fix this game is with more variable QP maps (not just more maps, variable maps, with randomized elements that create different scenarios) and overhauled FP (again with less-linear maps and deeper strategic context). Give me those and I'll never complain about laser vomit or TTK.*

* - Tho I reserve the right to continue complaining about the KDK3 if it remains unfixed.

Edited by Freebrewer Bmore, 12 September 2016 - 11:27 AM.

[Saint Atlas and the Commando Elf]

Thread has reached 2 pages. Salt level remains moderate.

What is wrong with you people???

Or is PGI actually doing something not totally bad? (Strange thought, I know)


Also, I would need about 7 more people on the test server. Anybody care to join?

[Aramoro999]

Herr Vorragend, on 12 September 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

Remove the Gauss-Charge. Argh!
This mechanic has to go.

I can't believe it.

It has to go.

[Idealsuspect]

Ghost heat wasn't perfect at beginning and isn't perfect now after 3 years of sad balance.
Energy draw will not be perfect at beginning and will not be perfect after 3 years of sad balance.

Ok 2 bads solutions but one solution don't implict 3 years of sad balance...

Also i choose the first one and plz PGI focus on what you want, news mechs, maps revamp or useless FW dev but plz don't try to do something with weapons balance

[NinjaJesus]

Have we officially hit the "Throw **** at the wall and see what sticks" phase of Energy Draw? It sort of seems that way what with dialing back skill trees, changing heat sinks, doubling (in some cases, almost tripling) UAC jam chance....

[Quardak]

Change everything. Give us a NEW GAME

... i like the changes ....

[Wintersdark]

.12 and and .17 DHS is interesting. There will actually be reasonable builds better off with SHS now given the in-engine DHS are .17 instead of .20.

This means that 25SHS is roughly equal to 18DHS, and 15t/s vs 8t/16s, so after that point SHS can pull ahead in large mechs with more tonnage than space.

Abdication, on 12 September 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Have we officially hit the "Throw **** at the wall and see what sticks" phase of Energy Draw? It sort of seems that way what with dialing back skill trees, changing heat sinks, doubling (in some cases, almost tripling) UAC jam chance....

I'm just happy they're actually willing to test some random stuff they've never been willing to even test before. I'd have preferred separate tests, but I'll take what I can get.

Realistically they only have a couple pts runs, as people get testing fatigue pretty quick.


But we've asked for many of these things for years. I'll take a thrown bone, even if it's a small one.

[Void Angel]

Sthtopokeon, on 12 September 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

Thread has reached 2 pages. Salt level remains moderate.

What is wrong with you people???

Or is PGI actually doing something not totally bad? (Strange thought, I know)


Also, I would need about 7 more people on the test server. Anybody care to join?

They're probably just sleeping. Give it time.

[Wintersdark]

Sthtopokeon, on 12 September 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

Thread has reached 2 pages. Salt level remains moderate.

What is wrong with you people???

Or is PGI actually doing something not totally bad? (Strange thought, I know)


Also, I would need about 7 more people on the test server. Anybody care to join?

There's lots of salt in other threads... By people not testing it.

I'm online, but no queued at the moment, getting something to eat. Will be trying for a match in 10 or so.

[Dee Eight]

I can't believe people keep bothering with the PTS thinking PGI will ever get it right.

[Deathlike]

The net loss on IS LL (duration is .1 more than live, damage is 1 pt less than live) still makes it inferior to the still already buffed CERMED on the PTS. However, the IS ERLL probably benefits a little indirectly from it (duration reduction of .15 from live).

I still don't understand the duration nerfs on the lesser lasers (mostly referring IS SPL) when they aren't really a thing unless you're a Firestarter-A.

Increasing DPS on Pulse Lasers require more radical changes... in the realm of MW3 (pulse laser mechanic where duration dictates cooldown/recharge) or MW4 (less damage/heat/alpha per shot, but can be shot multiple times compared to regular lasers to deal more overall damage in that span). So, those changes aren't even in the same ballpark as their intended effect (you simply cannot DPS with hot pulse lasers @ a frequent rate).

Edited by Deathlike, 12 September 2016 - 12:15 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Wintersdark, on 12 September 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

By people not testing it.

I'll test it when I get home from work. But I know that Energy Draw is bad in the form of linking all weapons, I don't need to keep testing to figure that out. The low heat cap thing might be okay... if Energy Draw was gone.

[Davers]

Dee Eight, on 12 September 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

I can't believe people keep bothering with the PTS thinking PGI will ever get it right.

Maybe with testing they will get it less wrong.

[Wintersdark]

Gas Guzzler, on 12 September 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

I'll test it when I get home from work. But I know that Energy Draw is bad in the form of linking all weapons, I don't need to keep testing to figure that out. The low heat cap thing might be okay... if Energy Draw was gone.

I get that. People aren't going to change their opinions about ED. I'm not asking anyone to.

I just hope to see people generate data. It's not just about what conclusions you draw, it's about what data is generated during the test too.

People need to stop thinking of each PTS as "How about *this* at the final system" and instead at the components of it; what works, what doesn't.

If you're firmly in the "no" camp for ED, then that's absolutely fine. There's a lot of other stuff too.

I for one am ecstatic at the notion that we've finally got an opportunity to show an alternative to both ED and GH, and it'd be a shame if people didn't bother just because their bums hurt about ED.

[Dee Eight]

Myself I don't understand why its so hard for PGI to have the dissipation of heat sinks be correct to their names ? 0.1 for SHS, and 0.2 for DHS, and a flat 1.0 increase in capacity for both single and doubles. Thus it really does become the balance that was TT, do you trade crit spaces for better efficiency or not. Also the extra cooling of leg heat sinks in shallow water... essentially doubling their rating...thus an IS mech with 4 leg heat sinks can dissipate 0.8 heat per second with those sinks while a clan with 2 DHS can also dissipate 0.8 from those sinks, but other IS mechs with DHS don't get that ability since the sinks won't fit the legs.