2 replies to this topic

[Sereglach]

Like usual, I've been doing all of my testing in the Testing Grounds because 1. I've been only able to play at odd times and 2. It's easier to get consistent results during tests.

The quick version of my impressions for PTS 4 is that the changes are absolutely movement in the right direction, but they don't go far enough to achieve desired goals. On a point by point basis, however:

- First and foremost, I don't think I should be needing to reiterate this, but please bring Flamers into Energy Draw and ditch their convoluted and odd mechanics that put them completely outside every other weapon system in the game. Energy Draw gives you the perfect opportunity to fix the flaws with the Flamer's current iteration and also make it work hand-in-hand with everything else in MWO. I'd recommend, again, 1.0 DPS, 2.0 HDPS, 1.0 HPS, and either 2.0 EDPS (if firing stops recharging) or 5.0 EDPS (if firing does not stop recharging).

- Heat Sink changes are meaningful, SHS builds COULD become viable for high alpha builds, but the numbers need to be a little more stark in contrast between the heatsink types. Give SHS 1.5 heat capacity and 1.2 cooling, while DHS have 1.0 heat capacity and 1.7 cooling. The numbers "equal out" in terms of strength, but create two very distinct flavors of heat systems. Regardless, while some people want TT values, here, this isn't TT; and we should be striving to make every piece of equipment useful.

- Skill tree changes made for acquiring a solid baseline. I'm mostly ignoring this because we're supposed to be seeing a new skill tree be presented by "Mech Con". However, the nerf to the quirks was notable . . . but it wouldn't bother me one way or another if these ever made it live. Again, we're supposed to be seeing a new skill system "soon" anyway.

- Gauss Rifles: I stand by my previous statement. Ditch the charge mechanic, keep the cooldown modestly higher than live, keep the energy cost higher (at least 1:1, but preferably something like 18-20 cost), and let the ED system do the rest. No limits on equipping . . . people will either bracket-fire or incur serious penalties (possibly blowing themselves up), it's as simple as that.

- PPC's: Not much to say since the C-ERPPC has been returned to "normal". The utility provided by PPC's may prove useful to some extent, but it is rather niche. Regardless, these things need velocity buffs . . . enough so that you don't need +50% velocity quirks for PPC's to actually feel like useful long range support/sniping weapons.

- Autocannons: Change the Ultras to a flat 10% jam chance and keep the dynamic jam durations. However, I'd probably be more inclined for a mere 2x cycle time jam instead of the numbers we have now. Killing an Ultra AC/20 for 10 seconds is insane . . . and will probably kill the user. The fact that we're balancing vs. the 10's and not 20's is saying something here about the usefulness of the 20. If anything, just cap the jam time at 8s for both the 10's and 20's.

- LRM's: Again, great move, but not far enough. I'd still say that we need to normalize the spread of all the LRM systems to what the 5 and 10 currently have, or maybe even compromise between what the 5 and 10 have on live and set everything to a 4m spread. While it's been a great boost to the larger launchers, I could still get faster and more efficient TTK's vs. an Atlas at 550m with 4x LRM/5+A -and use less tonnage overall- than I could with 2x LRM/20. For LRM's it's not just DPS that matters . . . a lot of it is ammo efficiency and missile spread. That probably matters even more than the base DPS numbers as they appear on paper. 3DPS all in the CT is worth more than 10 DPS scattered across an entire mech.

- Lasers: Hallelujah! We're finally moving in the right direction to make all laser systems feel like truly different weapons. However, the current set of changes just doesn't go far enough. When comparing to standard lasers, give Pulse Lasers ~50% less duration and cooldown per shot, cut the damage by ~40%, but only cut the heat by ~30%. You end up with better DPS that can be more pinpoint, but it runs significantly hotter and at shorter ranges. Just push the differences you're doing further and you'll have something that's much more on the right track. In fact, this even paves the way for things like Heavy Lasers, which could have longer cooldowns and durations for their MASSIVE damage and heat (10 damage 10 heat heavy medium laser . . . ouch).

To reiterate, this is all movement in the right direction. Just push the changes further to make the distinctions truly noteworthy.

Aside from that, I'll reiterate, please get the Flamer into ED and drop the current live implementation. You're doing all this other awesome stuff and implementing weapon balancing that we've been dying for on live, so please consider doing this. I'm begging here.

[Kaptain]

Sereglach, on 14 September 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

The quick version of my impressions for PTS 4 is that the changes are absolutely movement in the right direction

You lost me. PTS4 is so bad it can't possibly be a serious attempt at balance. PTS1-3 were ok but PTS4...

[Sereglach]

Kaptain, on 14 September 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

You lost me. PTS4 is so bad it can't possibly be a serious attempt at balance. PTS1-3 were ok but PTS4...

It's movement in the right direction as far as differentiating equipment and making things like SHS worthwhile or Pulse Lasers actually moving in the direction of Pulse Lasers from lore (which are more like Laser MG's). As I outline later, the changes just need to be pushed a lot further in the right direction to mean something.

However, at least they're working with the feedback and doing SOMETHING. People have been begging for things like lower heat cap and faster dissipation for ages. PGI is at least trying to do that to at least some extent, and people are complaining just as much as before.

What don't you like about the PTS4, specifically? What was ok about PTS1-3 but went off the deep end in 4? That's the kind of feedback that's constructive and meaningful as long as it's presented in a decent fashion. "PTS4 is so bad it can't possibly be a serious attempt at balance." means nothing to PGI and PGI will do what they do with all such remarks like that . . . ignore it.

I said it's movement in the right direction . . . keep reading and you'll see where I outline points where they need to push the numbers a lot further than they currently have (in said right direction).