74 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Tordin, on 18 September 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

Yeah. I have tested and found it better that the trainwreck Ghost Heat we have now. Its so freaking odd that before and maybe still, there are players that cant stand ghost heat, but now, NOW they have found a new scapegoat which are power draw.
By no powers on earth must PGI be allowed to experiment to find something that works for the better! Some bigots forgot that mwo are one of those games thats always in development/ experiment stage.
Sure neither GH or PW might be the systems that should do mech combat justice for immersion and balance, but they gotta try.

I fear the doomsayers, ultracomps and even saltyvets will make sure that PD will NOT come to pass, just to avoid getting their ego hammered down if that comes to pass and PD will work with the intent to break the alpha strike l33t warrior mentality that festers around here.
Alpha strike should be limited and only be used as last resort, at least not as often as ghost heat allows.
I feel the PD are kinder to mixed builds now, which Im happy with, though still needs tweaking.
Cant stand another PTS go bonkers down because of one singlular fault that could be corrected, like with the laser lock on from the role warfare thing PGI had going on for a while back. PGI got scared of death threatening l33t players fearing their comfort zone would be crushed, so they scrapped even the awesome stuff they had going for.

I hope PD will give a real kick to the gronads of you naysayers! Lets see how it all will turn once PD hopefully go fully live. I mean, you could always whine, beg and threat PGI to give us Ghost heat back, now wont you?

You do realize the comp players tend to gravitate towards what is effective? Bad builds will stay bad, and those same people who don't adapt will still complain with what the new meta happens to be.

It's a cycle people don't understand and keep repeating anyways.

I'm not saying ED is the worst idea, but the current implementation still leaves a lot to be desired.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 September 2016 - 02:38 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 18 September 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

You do realize the comp players tend to gravitate towards what is effective? Bad builds will stay bad, and those same people who don't adapt will still complain with what the new meta happens to be.

It's a cycle people don't understand and keep repeating anyways.

Changing up the meta is great though, creates a lovely period of uncertainty where those of us who loves our mechlab time can have a really great time.

Also shows who understands how to make a good build, and who just copies builds off a web site.

Eventually, though, a new meta will settle in, and the game will get boring and stale again, it's inevitable. If it where up to me, PGI would stir the pot more often. Not because I object to "metawhores" or some such idiotic thing (hating people for running good builds? That's ridiculous. How dare they want to win!) But because the time in between established meta's is so much more interesting.

Admittedly, that's self serving. I'm very good at my sweet mechlab, so it gives me a substantial advantage until others cotton on.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 18 September 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

Changing up the meta is great though, creates a lovely period of uncertainty where those of us who loves our mechlab time can have a really great time.

Also shows who understands how to make a good build, and who just copies builds off a web site.

Eventually, though, a new meta will settle in, and the game will get boring and stale again, it's inevitable. If it where up to me, PGI would stir the pot more often. Not because I object to "metawhores" or some such idiotic thing (hating people for running good builds? That's ridiculous. How dare they want to win!) But because the time in between established meta's is so much more interesting.

Admittedly, that's self serving. I'm very good at my sweet mechlab, so it gives me a substantial advantage until others cotton on.

The biggest problem is that PGI's time to change the meta is more stale than canned food (I can't think of any sort of food that doesn't go bad for a year.... and I don't want to think of McDonald's).

I mean, we can always remember "rapid balance changes in September" before the MWO "launch" (3 years ago).

#neverforget

Edited by Deathlike, 18 September 2016 - 05:19 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 18 September 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

The biggest problem is that PGI's time to change the meta is more stale than canned food (I can't think of any sort of food that doesn't go bad for a year.... and I don't want to think of McDonald's).

I mean, we can always remember "rapid balance changes in September" before the MWO "launch" (3 years ago).

#neverforget

Oh, yes, the "Aggressive balancing", that went along with several other iterative projects that where visited once, maybe twice, then forgotten. Phase one: pulse laser normalization! Next comes per weapon tuning! ... 2 years later....

[Candy Pumpkin]

Suggestion on gauss rifles with energy draw with reasons below:

• Remove charge mechanic
  
• Require 30 energy to fire
  
• 10 second cooldown

The reason I feel the charge mechanic should be removed is that, in my experience, it makes single gauss builds somewhat unviable in the current game. For the most part, since the charge mechanic was implemented I only see them in pairs or quads on heavies or assaults. Mediums that come stock with a single gauss such as the Grid Iron or Shadow Cat or even some assaults like the Highlander seem to me without a place with the charge mechanic.

Given no charge mechanic the 30 energy draw is to help minimize its use only as an offset for heat, also making twin gauss builds need to stagger their shots or else face extreme heat penalty. For that reason 30 may be a bit excessive, but I feel a heat penalty for firing two gauss simultaneously should be substantial enough to require cooling off. It would also help prevent high range alpha builds or poptarts with gauss/PPC/ERLL as about a second would be needed after firing the gauss before another weapon group could be used without overdrawing energy.

The ten second cooldown is to emphasize its use as a mid to long range sniping ballistic as opposed to the AC/10 or AC/20 as short to mid range high damage weapons. The long cooldown would also help support twin gauss builds since two gauss with a 10 second cooldown would perform similarly to a single gauss with a 5 second cooldown. 10 seconds was just a basic number that fit well with the above reasoning.

As for the restriction of two gauss that was implemented on the PTS I feel that with the above mentioned changes it would not be necessary as long as any mech that can realistically equip more than 2 does not have a cooldown bonus to gauss. Mechs that can equip 4 such as the Kodiak or Dire Wolf would therefore be doing so at a cost as they would need to stagger them at 1.5 second intervals to avoid a heat penalty, taking at least 4.5 seconds to fire them all efficiently and having to wait about that long to fire again. Though on this I have very little insight and would it would need trial to investigate.

I suggest these changes to bring the gauss' role in line with sniping weapons to better differentiate its use with an AC/20 which would be higher damage and fire rate at the cost of range and velocity. In the end, it's just an idea I had to help balance and diversify the game.

Just as a note I did not have a chance to try gauss on the PTS without the charge mechanic and my experience with energy draw is restricted to the training grounds. Most of this is based on a small amount of time on the PTS and a majority of time playing on the main server without energy draw, as well as experience with the gauss rifle before the charge mechanic was implemented.

[l3elthaz0r]

Candy Pumpkin, on 18 September 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

Suggestion on gauss rifles with energy draw with reasons below:

• Remove charge mechanic
  
• Require 30 energy to fire
  
• 10 second cooldown

The reason I feel the charge mechanic should be removed is that, in my experience, it makes single gauss builds somewhat unviable in the current game. For the most part, since the charge mechanic was implemented I only see them in pairs or quads on heavies or assaults. Mediums that come stock with a single gauss such as the Grid Iron or Shadow Cat or even some assaults like the Highlander seem to me without a place with the charge mechanic.


Given no charge mechanic the 30 energy draw is to help minimize its use only as an offset for heat, also making twin gauss builds need to stagger their shots or else face extreme heat penalty. For that reason 30 may be a bit excessive, but I feel a heat penalty for firing two gauss simultaneously should be substantial enough to require cooling off. It would also help prevent high range alpha builds or poptarts with gauss/PPC/ERLL as about a second would be needed after firing the gauss before another weapon group could be used without overdrawing energy.

The ten second cooldown is to emphasize its use as a mid to long range sniping ballistic as opposed to the AC/10 or AC/20 as short to mid range high damage weapons. The long cooldown would also help support twin gauss builds since two gauss with a 10 second cooldown would perform similarly to a single gauss with a 5 second cooldown. 10 seconds was just a basic number that fit well with the above reasoning.

As for the restriction of two gauss that was implemented on the PTS I feel that with the above mentioned changes it would not be necessary as long as any mech that can realistically equip more than 2 does not have a cooldown bonus to gauss. Mechs that can equip 4 such as the Kodiak or Dire Wolf would therefore be doing so at a cost as they would need to stagger them at 1.5 second intervals to avoid a heat penalty, taking at least 4.5 seconds to fire them all efficiently and having to wait about that long to fire again. Though on this I have very little insight and would it would need trial to investigate.

I suggest these changes to bring the gauss' role in line with sniping weapons to better differentiate its use with an AC/20 which would be higher damage and fire rate at the cost of range and velocity. In the end, it's just an idea I had to help balance and diversify the game.

Just as a note I did not have a chance to try gauss on the PTS without the charge mechanic and my experience with energy draw is restricted to the training grounds. Most of this is based on a small amount of time on the PTS and a majority of time playing on the main server without energy draw, as well as experience with the gauss rifle before the charge mechanic was implemented.

This is somewhat true. I play my Misery as a brawling build and recently took out the AC20 to replace it with a gauss. The advantage this gives is that I'm able to start firing earlier i.e. longer range than having to close the distance to use my AC. But the disadvantage is when brawling. Charging is really difficult when I'm fumbling with the keys and trying not to expose too much of my armor to the opponent. Maybe i just need to git gud...

[Galenthor Kerensky]

The charge mechanic is the primary reason I don't play gauss all that much... it's frustrating to see a target dodge the shot that doesn't get fired because of the gauss not being ready to fire before they get behind cover, or worse yet, a friendly between you and them... and speaking of the mechlab, is there any way to get those call to arms notices to stay out of the mechlab? I invariably end up spending almost twice as long as I need to in there because of having to dismiss those silly things cause it always gets in the way of seeing the mech info when customizing a mech...

[Tordin]

Wintersdark, on 18 September 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

Changing up the meta is great though, creates a lovely period of uncertainty where those of us who loves our mechlab time can have a really great time.

Also shows who understands how to make a good build, and who just copies builds off a web site.

Eventually, though, a new meta will settle in, and the game will get boring and stale again, it's inevitable. If it where up to me, PGI would stir the pot more often. Not because I object to "metawhores" or some such idiotic thing (hating people for running good builds? That's ridiculous. How dare they want to win!) But because the time in between established meta's is so much more interesting.

Admittedly, that's self serving. I'm very good at my sweet mechlab, so it gives me a substantial advantage until others cotton on.

Agree on most of your points.

Just to point it out. Im not against people who use optimal/ meta builds. Im fiercly against those compsognathus players who want that meta to stay forever so they can be inside their cozy comfort zone. Sure, it will be totally awesome for them while the rest of the game rots around them.
No!
Im all for meta as long as it is DYNAMIC and interesting. An everchanging meta is a good meta and a meta can consist of both mixed/ generalist and specialised/ boat builds.

[Wintersdark]

Tordin, on 19 September 2016 - 06:45 AM, said:

Agree on most of your points.

Just to point it out. Im not against people who use optimal/ meta builds. Im fiercly against those compsognathus players who want that meta to stay forever so they can be inside their cozy comfort zone. Sure, it will be totally awesome for them while the rest of the game rots around them.
No!
Im all for meta as long as it is DYNAMIC and interesting. An everchanging meta is a good meta and a meta can consist of both mixed/ generalist and specialised/ boat builds.

There are people who never want it to change, because they get used to things...

But my experience in ALL online games I've played? Competitive players generally don't care if things change. Theyll just figure out what works best afterwards and adapt.

Even here, I can't think of a single (serious) comp player who hates the idea of any meta changing. None.

People like to construct this ideal of the mean comp player who'll die to protect his precious meta, but that's certainly not the norm. We all get bored of the same old, same old after a while.

[Tordin]

Yeah, true theres always exceptions. I meant ultracomps or well l33t players if that was the term on non-adaptable players.

[MovinTarget]

Tordin, on 19 September 2016 - 09:06 AM, said:

Yeah, true theres always exceptions. I meant ultracomps or well l33t players if that was the term on non-adaptable players.

Not all though, One of the things I appreciated in my time with 228 was the constant discussion of new builds and experimenting with new configs...

Remember, its only meta until its suddenly *not* meta. Remember when LBX10s were laughed at? Last few months, they've been fantastic (less spread). Not even a major change and it totally changed the standard drop deck for so many players. At some point if it is deemed OP (okay that might not happen), there'll be a subtle tweak and a new school of thought will arise.

My point is that it doesn't take ED for these things to happen.

Also, If the Guass charge is back, should they/did they return the ability to carry more than 2 but only fire 2 at a time?

[Deathlike]

MovinTarget, on 19 September 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

Not all though, One of the things I appreciated in my time with 228 was the constant discussion of new builds and experimenting with new configs...

Remember, its only meta until its suddenly *not* meta. Remember when LBX10s were laughed at? Last few months, they've been fantastic (less spread). Not even a major change and it totally changed the standard drop deck for so many players. At some point if it is deemed OP (okay that might not happen), there'll be a subtle tweak and a new school of thought will arise.

My point is that it doesn't take ED for these things to happen.

Also, If the Guass charge is back, should they/did they return the ability to carry more than 2 but only fire 2 at a time?

LBX10s are still not a thing in comp play. It may be fun, but it's not really a serious option.

[TheLuc]

Just tried the PTS today in the testing grounds, not much change to what it was before, what i noticed more was the ACs firing slower but that's about it. Like I wrote before, most of my builds wont be affected, its really just ghost heat 2.0

[MovinTarget]

Deathlike, on 19 September 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

LBX10s are still not a thing in comp play. It may be fun, but it's not really a serious option.

Fair point, I don't do comp play, my schedule is too fluid, but we developed "FP meta" I suppose... something a bit more usable by the average player (that doesn't do comp).

[MovinTarget]

Okay, I finally toyed with Extreme LRM boating on the PTS and, yeah the days of the LRM60+ Alpha are pretty much gone.

I used the Highlander IIc with 4 missile slots and loaded 4 LRM20s:

My 3 tests were Chainfire (one at a time), Dual Chainfire (two at a time), and Alpha fire(all teh missles!)

Prod Test:
Chainfire left me at ~30% heat at the end
Dual Chainfire left me at ~37% heat
Alpha fire at ~60% heat

PTS test
Chainfire: ~30%
Dual chainfire ~60%
Alpha fire *100+%*

So guys that don't wanna trickle their lurms are not gonna like ED.

I will say the CT hits were higher on the PTS, or so it seemed.... not really my focus...

Edited by MovinTarget, 20 September 2016 - 06:24 AM.

[Wintersdark]

MovinTarget, on 20 September 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Okay, I finally toyed with Extreme LRM boating on the PTS and, yeah the days of the LRM60+ Alpha are pretty much gone.

I used the Highlander IIc with 4 missile slots and loaded 4 LRM20s:

My 3 tests were Chainfire (one at a time), Dual Chainfire (two at a time), and Alpha fire(all teh missles!)

Prod Test:
Chainfire left me at ~30% heat at the end
Dual Chainfire left me at ~37% heat
Alpha fire at ~60% heat

PTS test
Chainfire: ~30%
Dual chainfire ~60%
Alpha fire *100+%*

So guys that don't wanna trickle their lurms are not gonna like ED.

I will say the CT hits were higher on the PTS, or so it seemed.... not really my focus...

Not sure exactly what you're doing, but I found LRM's to be substantially stronger on the PTS.

Particularly ALRM20's, which you can fire two of with no extra heat, and have LRM10 grouping now. Fire two, wait for a second, fire two more; you're golden.

If running 4x15, that's a smaller wait between volleys.

2xALM20 can really wreck stuff on the pts though. Way tighter, makes a huge difference

[MovinTarget]

Wintersdark, on 20 September 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

Not sure exactly what you're doing, but I found LRM's to be substantially stronger on the PTS.

Particularly ALRM20's, which you can fire two of with no extra heat, and have LRM10 grouping now. Fire two, wait for a second, fire two more; you're golden.

If running 4x15, that's a smaller wait between volleys.

2xALM20 can really wreck stuff on the pts though. Way tighter, makes a huge difference

I was testing for the impact on the guys that want to click one button and fire all teh missiles. You can do that now on Production even w/ GH. You won't really be able to do it effectively with ED as currently constituted.

...and thats fine by me.

[Herr Vorragend]

Give it a try. So far I think ED is superior to GH and PGI (and we) are moving into the right direction.
The only thing I dislike is the gauss charge.

Edited by Herr Vorragend, 20 September 2016 - 08:05 AM.

[Wintersdark]

MovinTarget, on 20 September 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

I was testing for the impact on the guys that want to click one button and fire all teh missiles. You can do that now on Production even w/ GH. You won't really be able to do it effectively with ED as currently constituted.

...and thats fine by me.

Yeah, no complaints here either. Making people sprea lurms a bit isn't going to do any harm; and with the grouping fixed balancing them will be easier. As well, with forced spreading there's less concern about massive missile alphas being too strong and thus smaller missile load outs being nerfed into uselessness.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 20 September 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

Yeah, no complaints here either. Making people sprea lurms a bit isn't going to do any harm; and with the grouping fixed balancing them will be easier. As well, with forced spreading there's less concern about massive missile alphas being too strong and thus smaller missile load outs being nerfed into uselessness.

Indirectly though, it makes it easier to avoid (not that it isn't the case already).

The only time chain firing LRMs is a good idea is when the target is extraordinarily vulnerable. It's less than effective for anyone that is always in good cover.