26 replies to this topic

[davoodoo]

So now since everything was nerfed(or never worked to begin with) in 1 way or another in process to make ed work, i would like to ask.

Also for those saying its not related to ed.
"The second caveat is that these changes, as currently structure in this PTS build, will not be a replacement for the Energy Draw system. We discussed that potential internally, and ultimately the Threshold change alone does not directly address the design goals intended with the implementation of the Energy Draw system."

From patch notes, these nerfs are a part of ed...

Edited by davoodoo, 12 September 2016 - 12:25 PM.

[Wintersdark]

davoodoo, on 12 September 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

So now since everything was nerfed in 1 way or another in process to make ed work, i would like to ask.

Or they could just drop ED, and nerf everything more.

[FupDup]

It's not ED itself that's causing the issues per se, it's that PGI is nerfing crap around the ED system...and the specific nerfs they're choosing are usually misguided ones.

[davoodoo]

FupDup, on 12 September 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

It's not ED itself that's causing the issues per se, it's that PGI is nerfing crap around the ED system...and the specific nerfs they're choosing are usually misguided ones.

These nerfs are to adjust for ed, but yeah its not ed thats causing problems...

Its pgi without any idea how their game plays thats at fault for both ed and these nerfs.

[cazidin]

Remove ED and PGI will still likely keep most of these nerfs. Don't blame ED because of PGI's unfortunate lack of aim with darts.

[Wintersdark]

Doubling armor again is not a good way to go. While you're giving every mech an equal percentage increase in armor, you're not increasing their survivability equally.

Doubling armor again, then, would be an extreme buff to heavies and (particularly) assaults vs. the poor lights who gain just a little bit.

Won't somebody please think of the Commandos?

It also creates a weird situation where high damage weapons become less and less valuable vs. DOT weapons, pushing us strongly towards DPS races. When an Atlas can eat 10 AC20 blasts directly to it's CT and not even touch structure... yeah, don't go there.

Much better to reduce cooldown/play with heat (for dakka + other respectively) than increase armor. The end result is the same, but individual shots matter more, preserving the value of those bigass weapons.

This falls under the "When your idea seems like it's a simple solution to all the problems, you've probably overlooked something" heading.

[Tombs Clawtooth]

Can someone explain to me why they seek to increase TTK?

I have yet to have a match I haven't lived either till match end or at least till the last few mechs, since I learned how to aim and position myself. Standing in the open and getting focused by the entire enemy team will get you killed fast regardless how much they try to increase TTK.

It takes pouring enormous amounts of firepower into an enemy mech to kill them. So much so that lore related loadouts seem more like a practical joke rather than something viable.

I think one minor thing could possibly help... Not letting damage bleed from destroyed components into neighboring components.

Edited by Tombs Clawtooth, 12 September 2016 - 08:34 PM.

[Crushko]

What people forget is that the game is in very good shape on live, as there is a counter to pretty much every Meta Build. And Meta Builds may be good in situation A, but not situation B. So one could say the game is balanced as much as an online game can be, with only small adjustments needed.

However what we see is ED, a secondary Heat Scale on top of the primary Heat Scale, while the primary Heat Scale gets nerfed as well. Everything the game achieved balancing wise over the years is now in question.

[MechaBattler]

Death to Alphawarrior online.

[davoodoo]

Wintersdark, on 12 September 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

Doubling armor again is not a good way to go. While you're giving every mech an equal percentage increase in armor, you're not increasing their survivability equally.

No, you increase lights survivability more than assaults...

still 120x2=240
10dmg vs 120 armor=12 ppc shots
10dmg vs 240 armor=24 ppc shots
armor last twice as much
10 dmg vs 20 armor=2 ppc shots
10 dmg vs 40 armor=4 ppc shots
armor lasts twice as much and you cant get destroyed by stray shot from 3 ppcs(which fired vertically have a chance to hit same location on moving target)

I would like to see your mathematical proof that doubling armor provides less than double protection in any case if we ignore external factors like quirks.

Edited by davoodoo, 13 September 2016 - 06:43 AM.

[Wintersdark]

davoodoo, on 13 September 2016 - 06:39 AM, said:

I would like to see your mathematical proof that doubling armor provides less than double protection in any case if we ignore external factors like quirks.

*sighs*

Double protection, yes. I said it increases by the same percentage.

However, gaining 20 armor and gaining 120 armor are extremely different things, because strike size doesn't change.

While the Atlas can sustain twice as many hits, and the Locust can sustain twice as many hits, this still only means that a light takes 2 hits to puncture it's armor, while the atlas takes 8.

This is a situation where how math, while totally correct, can easily give the wrong initial conclusion.

---

Look at it this way. Take two guys, one with $500 in his pocket, and one with $5 in his pocket.

Now double their money.

Both guys gained 100% of their starting funds! They both gained the same amount! Both now have double their prior purchasing power.

Except one guy gained $495 more than the other guy, and now has $890 more than him.

Lunch costs $5. Now the $5 guy can buy two lunches, while the $500 guy can buy 200 lunches.

This is much how armor works in MWO. The damage you take in a hit doesn't change; it's a flat amount. The light can eat one extra hit, the assault can eat 4 hits. The Assault gains massively more from this deal than the light does.

Edited by Wintersdark, 13 September 2016 - 08:41 AM.

[Appuagab]

Tombs Clawtooth, on 12 September 2016 - 08:25 PM, said:

Can someone explain to me why they seek to increase TTK?

Because most of matches are like «10 minutes walking, 10 minutes staying in cover waiting for opportunity to oneshot entire enemy team one by one with couple of focused alphas in CT, 1 minute of actual combat, 12-0».
Oh, and also 20 minutes of connecting to mechlab after that.

[davoodoo]

Wintersdark, on 13 September 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

While the Atlas can sustain twice as many hits, and the Locust can sustain twice as many hits, this still only means that a light takes 2 hits to puncture it's armor, while the atlas takes 8.

1)Lights never relied on armor to deal with incoming dmg.
2)Complaint isnt with doubling armor values, but with light survivability itself(if you fine tune and double or double and then finetune it would make no difference).
3)atlas could always sustain 4 times more dmg so its only logical its gain will be 4 times as big as locust. It got more armor for a reason.

In your metaphor with lunches, you dont ask why 1 guy had 5$ and another 500$.
So ill expand.

1 guy got equivalent of 5$ and another 500$
double that and 1st guy got 10$ another 1000$.
In case of 1st guy lunch costs him equivalent of 10 cents and another 10$, they can both buy 100 lunches

Thats how accurate this metaphor is...
Lights get less armor because less fire hits them.

Edited by davoodoo, 13 September 2016 - 11:39 AM.

[Tombs Clawtooth]

Appuagab, on 13 September 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Because most of matches are like «10 minutes walking, 10 minutes staying in cover waiting for opportunity to oneshot entire enemy team one by one with couple of focused alphas in CT, 1 minute of actual combat, 12-0».
Oh, and also 20 minutes of connecting to mechlab after that.

Sounds like a problem with weapon damage across the board rather than armor or cool down, etc. You make all the guns slow and sluggish and the game becomes boring and sluggish. You double the armor, you end up with tons of unintended consequences.

You simply apply a 50% reduction to all damage dealt per shot, and double ammo provided per ton, and you end up reducing TTK by a fair margin and heat will play a bigger role in loadout considerations. Since after all, the problem with alpha striking isn't necessarily the alpha damage its self, but the ability to follow it up with enough DPS to quickly kill the enemy.

Overall it seems like an interesting test to perform to me. Use all live weapon stats but just halve the damage across the board. Bring up a few things that under-perform, relative, afterwards, and I don't for see any issues. It would be a large deviation from TT, but I think we're already past that consideration point.

Edited by Tombs Clawtooth, 13 September 2016 - 12:55 PM.

[Khobai]

YEAH NERF ALL THE THINGS

TURN THIS



INTO THIS

[Ragnahawk]

Mechwarrior right now

[davoodoo]

Red FireAnt, on 13 September 2016 - 01:32 PM, said:

Mechwarrior right now

You realise that we already do less dmg than tt builds??
and that we have double armor on top of that??

Our superhawt clan laservomit was heat neutral alpha for 65 tonner...

In ed mechs shoot nothing but kindness...

Edited by davoodoo, 13 September 2016 - 02:00 PM.

[Vincent Quatermain]

davoodoo, on 12 September 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

These nerfs are to adjust for ed, but yeah its not ed thats causing problems...

This claim of yours needs support. Note that repeating your claim does not count as support.

[davoodoo]

Vincent Quatermain, on 13 September 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

This claim of yours needs support. Note that repeating your claim does not count as support.

"We feel that there is merit in testing - as part of the Energy Draw system - some often-requested pieces of feedback toward placing heavier restrictions on Heat Thresholds, and unifying the previously distinct Engine Heat Sink and External Heat Sink values."
...from the horses mouth.

[Vincent Quatermain]

davoodoo, on 13 September 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

"We feel that there is merit in testing - as part of the Energy Draw system - some often-requested pieces of feedback toward placing heavier restrictions on Heat Thresholds, and unifying the previously distinct Engine Heat Sink and External Heat Sink values."
...from the horses mouth.

This does not demonstrate your claim. All that says is that PGI is continuing to keep testing a version of MWO that includes Energy Draw. It does not demonstrate that Energy Draw is the cause of all the nerfs. You could easily have energy draw with greatly buffed weapons. (Case in point, C-ERPPC on PTS3!)

There are nerfs because they want to increase TTK. This has nothing to do with the ED mechanic.

(Although I suspect that the heat nerf in PTS4 is just to shut up all the idiots who want to play Shutdown Warrior Online. Expect PTS5 to revert to a cooler balance.)