127 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

1) What started out as a new system to replace heat scale (ghost heat), has veered off and is now less about the system and has devolved into a downward spiral of nerfing weapons.


2) Instead of using Energy Draw to control Alphas, we have now moved to having both an Energy Draw restriction AND significant heat capacity nerfs. On top of that, the Energy Draw heat penalties have become more severe over time.

Who is this to satisfy? How low does damage need to go? This is frustrating because it is only appeasing one-segment of this player base and is very clearly not favored by everyone.

This is a shooting game, it is fun to shoot weapons - that's part of the point.

It is not fun to constantly restrict being able to actually shoot weapons, this is why Hot Maps are very rarely chosen over Cold Maps. They restrict fun.




3) Weapon balance is shifting too much with each new PTS, too many variable changes makes it difficult to isolate and test.

There is also zero incentive to get on the test server, aside from the vague hope that your feedback will be listened to.

Looking at where the PTS is right now, I don't feel my personal feedback has had an impact that was worth the time I spent testing builds and evaluating the numbers.




I'm very low on confidence that whatever comes out of this PTS will result in a game that I will continue to play and enjoy.

The amount of alphas have been restricted to 30 damage with no penalty, heat penalties have become very severe, heat caps have been lowered (which compounds the heat penalty impact), weapon cooldowns have been lowered, some weapon's damage outputs have been lowered, cooldown modules have been lowered, etc.


How far down does everything need to be nerfed?
Who is giving this input?
What are their skill levels in this game?
Why is their feedback the prime feedback for the future of this game's mechanics?

Edited by Ultimax, 22 September 2016 - 10:44 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

Alpha warrior is pissed

[kapusta11]

Monkey Lover, on 22 September 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

Alpha warrior is pissed

Not as pissed as you, when you figure out that the game after ED will have its own meta, and looking at the changes, probably a worse one.

[Monkey Lover]

kapusta11, on 22 September 2016 - 07:42 AM, said:

Not as pissed as you, when you figure out that the game after ED will have its own meta, and looking at the changes, probably a worse one.

There will always be a meta the question is , Does Ed make the game better for most people.

The meta I see happening unless they start balancing will be pin point damage. If 30ish alpha is all you can do then you better be sure to get them all in the right spot before the other guy does. Unlike now where you basically try to position to get the first direct hit.

If it's not this it will be DPS mechs and if I had to pick I would take this as pinpoint is more damaging to the worst class of mechs (med/light).

Edited by Monkey Lover, 22 September 2016 - 08:10 AM.

[FupDup]

TL;DR: Energy Draw itself isn't that horrible (not great, but it's playable), it's the cascade of misguided nerfs to weapons and equipment that causes nearly all of the problems in the PTS.

[Wintersdark]

Honestly, I'm kind of the other way around. I LIKE the weapon nerfs.

Ever since the Clan release, we've had continuous power creep. This un-creeps it a lot, and imho thats a good thing. I get people don't like nerfs, but it's something pretty necessary to get **** back where it's supposed to be.

I also like energy draw (though I'd prefer neither ED nor GH!)

However, I do think that the combinations are unnecessary. The overall nerfs on the PTS render ED and GH largely unnecessary, imho. Or conversely, use ED and don't nerf the crap out of everything.

Both together is, imho, somewhat much.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 22 September 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

Honestly, I'm kind of the other way around. I LIKE the weapon nerfs.

Ever since the Clan release, we've had continuous power creep. This un-creeps it a lot, and imho thats a good thing. I get people don't like nerfs, but it's something pretty necessary to get **** back where it's supposed to be.

I also like energy draw (though I'd prefer neither ED nor GH!)

However, I do think that the combinations are unnecessary. The overall nerfs on the PTS render ED and GH largely unnecessary, imho. Or conversely, use ED and don't nerf the crap out of everything.

Both together is, imho, somewhat much.

Power Regression is just as bad as Power Creep.

Who exactly thought that the IS Large Laser needed less damage and a longer burn time, as just one example?

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 22 September 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

Power Regression is just as bad as Power Creep.

Who exactly thought that the IS Large Laser needed less damage and a longer burn time, as just one example?

the Large Laser is bad because of how it compares to other things. Relative stats are important, compared to each other in the build. The weapons stats compared to live only matter in the aggregate.

Your example isn't showing "power regression is as bad as power creep"; it's highlighting a broken weapon.

The overall bar is way to high now. It needs to come down.

That bar has edged up month after month for years, and thats a problem. It needs to be dialed back.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 22 September 2016 - 08:55 AM, said:

the Large Laser is bad because of how it compares to other things. Relative stats are important, compared to each other in the build. The weapons stats compared to live only matter in the aggregate.

Your example isn't showing "power regression is as bad as power creep"; it's highlighting a broken weapon.

The overall bar is way to high now. It needs to come down.

That bar has edged up month after month for years, and thats a problem. It needs to be dialed back.

So, are you saying that the IS LL was too powerful? I just want to confirm.

If the IS LL is deemed as "overpowered," then the baseline is being set way too low. Are we using the AC/2 or Small Laser as the baseline? That's what it feels like.

If anything, the live server IS LL is one of the most balanced weapons in the game that is neither super powerful nor super weak.

Edited by FupDup, 22 September 2016 - 08:58 AM.

[Taxxian]

I think ED is much better than GH... not perfect but at least better.

To the Weapon nerfs: Its a good idea to lower DPS a bit, but we did not reach the point where all weapons are useful with PTS5.

[Ultimax]

Monkey Lover, on 22 September 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

Alpha warrior is pissed

Maybe you're just being glib, or maybe you've just not been paying attention - or maybe being obtuse is just your natural state.


As much I felt ED was unnecessary, I have been testing, evaluating an giving constructive feedback to make it a good system if it goes live.

My dissatisfaction goes beyond that, and is about the unneeded nerfs to weapons systems, heat sinks & modules that quite frankly mostly appeals to low/mid skill players because they think it will narrow the performance gap between themselves and players better than them.


Which is simply untrue, and laughable. They will still lose, and still feel they die too easily - and they will find something else that is apparently overpowered and needs to be nerfed.

Taxxian, on 22 September 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

I think ED is much better than GH... not perfect but at least better.

To the Weapon nerfs: Its a good idea to lower DPS a bit, but we did not reach the point where all weapons are useful with PTS5.

My post isn't about ED, it's about the state of the PTS - which goes beyond just ED.

Edited by Ultimax, 22 September 2016 - 09:03 AM.

[PitchBlackYeti]

Wintersdark, on 22 September 2016 - 08:55 AM, said:

the Large Laser is bad because of how it compares to other things. Relative stats are important, compared to each other in the build. The weapons stats compared to live only matter in the aggregate.

Your example isn't showing "power regression is as bad as power creep"; it's highlighting a broken weapon.

The overall bar is way to high now. It needs to come down.

That bar has edged up month after month for years, and thats a problem. It needs to be dialed back.

So if you're saying the weapons need to be dialed back, why on earth start with IS LL? Who in heaven's name has asked for this? With 8 damage and longer burn it is nearly a hotter CERML for five times the tonnage and twice the space!!!!! So the next step should be to nerf the CERML to 5 dmg and 1.30 burn?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 22 September 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

Honestly, I'm kind of the other way around. I LIKE the weapon nerfs.

I'm inclined to agree with this, with a caveat, the laser nerfs were not necessary, without quirks the standard LL was and has been a subpar weapon for a long time.

Get rid of ED and then we can look at some of these weapons a lot better (particularly lasers).

Speaking of which, I feel like they are doing things wrong with pulse now, it should be standard lasers that are meant for DPS, not pulse, pulse should be the accurate pseudo-PPFLD weapons.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 September 2016 - 09:48 AM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

PitchBlackYeti, on 22 September 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

So if you're saying the weapons need to be dialed back, why on earth start with IS LL? Who in heaven's name has asked for this? With 8 damage and longer burn it is nearly a hotter CERML for five times the tonnage and twice the space!!!!! So the next step should be to nerf the CERML to 5 dmg and 1.30 burn?

I'm fine with the LL family having TT damage now (aside from the not-9 damage LPL) But the LL needs 1 less heat and faster cooldown/beam duration to make it more competitive, and maybe lower the damage on clan small and medium lasers, with also shorter beams to compensate.

[Livaria]

I may not give all the answers you need Ultimax, however I'll attempt to answer as many issues as I can. Just know that it's not going to be easy for either of us when it comes to getting a good message across. I'll start by saying that there are a lot of reasons why the current testing is the way it is now.

Quote

1) What started out as a new system to replace heat scale (ghost heat), has veered off and is now less about the system and has devolved into a downward spiral of nerfing weapons.

I do not believe it's a downward spiral of nerfing weapons nor has it veered off-course. The pulse laser may have gone down in damage, but it's going upwards in cooldown reduction. If the cooldown is short enough to be good, then it could be said that the pulse laser is changed rather than nerfed.

A change in plan is often necessary, even if the original plan was to only test the energy draw system. There could have been a realization that sometimes one change is not enough. Power draw by itself might not be able to increase TTK significantly enough. If this is the case, then PGI has to consider changes to some weapons. Hence why it's probably being tested.

Quote

2) Instead of using Energy Draw to control Alphas, we have now moved to having both an Energy Draw restriction AND significant heat capacity nerfs. On top of that, the Energy Draw heat penalties have become more severe over time.

There is a group of players who are on board with having less heat capacity, even overwhelmingly so. Just because PGI is testing their theory doesn't mean that they agree in the slightest. Despite how open PGI has been towards feedback, a players perception will still continue to lean towards that PGI is not listening.

Now, PGI Is certaintly paying attention. The type of listening that many players really want however; is the type of listening that requires obedience not attention. I trust PGI enough to pay attention and not obey actions that are harmful.

Quote

3) Weapon balance is shifting too much with each new PTS, too many variable changes makes it difficult to isolate and test.

It can be difficult to isolate and test certain properties. PGI is still deciding on what possibilities are acceptable. For now, just test each and every instance of change found in PTS. Attempt to find out what the objective is for each of these changes, See if you can find a valid issue towards it's effect on gameplay. If it doesn't fufill that objective or you disagree with said objective. Then that is when you give feedback.

Edited by Livaria, 22 September 2016 - 10:20 AM.

[Ultimax]

Gentleman Reaper, on 22 September 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

I'm fine with the LL family having TT damage now (aside from the not-9 damage LPL) But the LL needs 1 less heat and faster cooldown/beam duration to make it more competitive, and maybe lower the damage on clan small and medium lasers, with also shorter beams to compensate.

The problem with it, is that they have already created an optimal number.

That number is 30.

If the weapon does not fit into a design that allows it to achieve an alpha of 30, that weapon drops a notch on the list of upper tier weapons.

So when you push weapons down to something awkward, like 8 - it goes from "3 = 27 damage" to "3 = 24 damage".

Well, now that weapon is screwed. It can't take a 4th to create a clean "Alpha 30", and an Alpha of 24 is too weak.

It can't be combined with any large ballistic in an efficient way, and it can't be combined with anything other than 1 medium type laser.



That's it, min/max moves on to the next options to find what is optimal and you will not see anyone who is serious about winning taking the LLAS at that point. It will be a 2nd, probably 3rd tier weapon only used on goofball builds or by people who think building bad mechs makes them unique and special.

Edited by Ultimax, 22 September 2016 - 10:20 AM.

[Livaria]

It still can be combined; an alpha of 24 is still good but I won't deny that it probably means that it would be used less.

The only weapon thats has been indefinitely nerfed is the Large Laser and the LRM 5/10. The rest seems debatable in my opinion.

Edited by Livaria, 22 September 2016 - 10:33 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Unfortunately ED continues the tradition of trying to implement a system which is fundamentally flawed right down to its base mechanics and then trying to form the build and weapons systems around this other system in a way that mitigates these base design flaws.

We've been down this road before. Twice now, in fact... with the base heat system, then ghost heat. Trying to build a complicated structure on top of broken and uneven ground, and then wondering why nothing is level.

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 22 September 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

So, are you saying that the IS LL was too powerful? I just want to confirm.

If the IS LL is deemed as "overpowered," then the baseline is being set way too low. Are we using the AC/2 or Small Laser as the baseline? That's what it feels like.

If anything, the live server IS LL is one of the most balanced weapons in the game that is neither super powerful nor super weak.

No, Fup. Seriously, am I being unclear or are you being deliberately obtuse?

The Large Laser didn't need to be nerfed; it is not op now and it IS underpowered on the PTS.

I'd go further and say the laser nerfs in general where unnecessary.

What WAS necessary though was the blanket cooldown nerf and such.

My point is that while there are borked SPECIFICS in the pts weapon stats, ALL weapons need to be somewhat weaker, to dial back the power creep that's happened continuously since the Clans dropped. In this, overall the weapon nerfs, while not all well done (particularly not the LL) are much needed for MWO.

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 September 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

I'm inclined to agree with this, with a caveat, the laser nerfs were not necessary, without quirks the standard LL was and has been a subpar weapon for a long time.

Get rid of ED and then we can look at some of these weapons a lot better (particularly lasers).

Agreed. As I said, as much as I do prefer ED to Ghost Heat, with the scale of weapon nerfs and heat cap reduction I don't feel either (GH or ED) are actually needed.

Quote

Speaking of which, I feel like they are doing things wrong with pulse now, it should be standard lasers that are meant for DPS, not pulse, pulse should be the accurate pseudo-PPFLD weapons.

This gets into semantics, and I don't really care either way. I prefer the idea of one type being higher DPS while the other is more pokey, though, because then you've got more interesting options.