127 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 26 September 2016 - 04:33 PM, said:

I think "we're done" with the PTS, based on Russ's tweets.

Even if the PTS is done, the true chaos has yet to begin...

[Ultimax]

Kael Posavatz, on 25 September 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

This is one of the big problems with Ghost Heat, and it is an issue that--at least to me--a lot of the people commenting in the PTS feedback channel are overlooking.

People should not make comments without reading what came before it.

Re-read my first post, my post is not about energy draw it is about weapon nerfs.

FupDup, on 26 September 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

Even if the PTS is done, the true chaos has yet to begin...

If these weapon nerfs go live, I'm probably going to take an extended hiatus from the game.

As it is the solo & group queues are full of potatoes and is thus a terrible and boring experience.

People who after 2 or 3 years still can't even grasp fundamental aspects about builds, gameplay, map positioning or movement.


The only enjoyable aspect at this point for me are comp matches, so I'm basically playing this game to take part in MRBC.


If all of these awful weapon nerfs go live? Yeah, I don't think I want to be here while the lowest common denominator gets catered to.

[Kael Posavatz]

Ultimax, on 27 September 2016 - 09:11 AM, said:

People should not make comments without reading what came before it.

I thought I did. Let me check...

ScarecrowES, on 25 September 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

We can try to work backward from the specified result, but have to be honest about what that result should be. Going by what people generally have said here during ED testing, players want slight reductions in (or perhaps merely metering out of) burst damage, small reductions in overt alphas (with special emphasis on specific types), more considered combat pacing (rather than merely spamming ever bit of firepower you have as soon as you have it), and tangible penalties for excessive output.

Kael Posavatz, on 25 September 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

You missed one.

5) A system that is more user-friendly, both in concept and articulation in-game, so that it does not present a barrier for new players to struggle with.

This is one of the big problems with Ghost Heat, and it is an issue that--at least to me--a lot of the people commenting in the PTS feedback channel are overlooking.

Yeah, looks like I was replying to ScarecrowES there. Sorry if I made a comment regarding Energy Draw in a thread on weapon nerfs titled Why I'm Unhappy With The Current Pts Direction and located in the Energy Draw feedback channel. My bad. Will take care not to repeat this in the future.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 27 September 2016 - 11:40 AM.

[Ultimax]

Kael Posavatz, on 27 September 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

located in the Energy Draw feedback channel. My bad. Will take care not to repeat this in the future.

It's not your fault that PGI decided to muddy the waters and instead of design, develop and test an Energy Draw system they instead have derailed into a series of weapon nerfs that will do more damage to game balance than help it

Edited by Ultimax, 27 September 2016 - 12:28 PM.

[Reno Blade]

I think that the ED system in itself is already working as intended and doesn't need much of changes anymore.
Any build is limited to spread group fire in 30 dmg chunks (spread weapons a bit higher), no matter if mixed or boat.

The only beef I have is the relatively fast energy replenishment making it still easy to deliver a lot of damage in a short timeframe.


The weapon changes in addition to ED will ensure the builds for 30energy volleys are close enough, as it will be as useful to have mixed builds as it is to build boats (as you need to space your shots anyway because of the penalties).
Ofc you can still use your 4-6 LL/LP build, or your 4x UAC builds, but all builds are pushed into spacing the shots into groups.

For the nerfed LL/LP:
You can now use 4x LL/LP before penalties, but you will do the same damage as current 3x, so you can keep boating LL/LP, but the tonnage investment for the damage is worse.
This also pushes you to more mixed builds (to use other weapons for more dmg/ton/heat).
Even if this only pushed Energy boats to mix it up more with other lasers/PPCs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 27 September 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

It's not your fault that PGI decided to muddy the waters and instead of design, develop and test an Energy Draw system they instead have derailed into a series of weapon nerfs that will do more damage to game balance than help it

If they would drop Energy Draw the weapon nerfs wouldn't be quite as bad.

Reno Blade, on 27 September 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:

This also pushes you to more mixed builds (to use other weapons for more dmg/ton/heat).

No, it pushes you to just stack more or just not use the weapon at all.....

Seriously, nerfing weapons doesn't magically make mixed builds better, it just has the potential (in this case that potential is true) to take a weapon out of the meta (or bring more in depending on the power levels of other weapons).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 September 2016 - 01:00 PM.

[Drunk Canuck]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 September 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

If they would drop Energy Draw the weapon nerfs wouldn't be quite as bad.


No, it pushes you to just stack more or just not use the weapon at all.....

Seriously, nerfing weapons doesn't magically make mixed builds better, it just has the potential (in this case that potential is true) to take a weapon out of the meta (or bring more in depending on the power levels of other weapons).

Well, the weapon nerfs wouldn't do much other than nerf already under performing non laser boats.

[FupDup]

Drunk Canuck, on 27 September 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Well, the weapon nerfs wouldn't do much other than nerf already under performing non laser boats.

Most of the weapon nerfs target laser boats specifically. The large class in particular has been hammered into the ground, with only the Clan ER surviving and maybe IS ER LL surviving.

The PTS nerfs also make the AC/5 have lower DPS than the AC/2...

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 27 September 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

The PTS nerfs also make the AC/5 have lower DPS than the AC/2...

This part sounds terrible, but I'm not sure it is.

I get how it's easy to think that they should just all have a nice linear increase in overall DPS, given they get bigger and heavier...

But there are a few factors that need to play into this as well.

You can fire+twist+fire+twist AC5's here, you cannot do that with AC2's. AC2's require constant facetime - and that's a big part of why even when they do more damage over time than AC5's, they're worse weapons. Now, there's all sorts of discussions that can be had about how AC2's should be balanced (less heat?) but that's a discussion for somewhere else, and someone else, as I figure it's pretty much pointless to bother.

Anyways, yeah, there's a reason the AC2 does more DPS.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 27 September 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

This part sounds terrible, but I'm not sure it is.

I get how it's easy to think that they should just all have a nice linear increase in overall DPS, given they get bigger and heavier...

But there are a few factors that need to play into this as well.

You can fire+twist+fire+twist AC5's here, you cannot do that with AC2's. AC2's require constant facetime - and that's a big part of why even when they do more damage over time than AC5's, they're worse weapons. Now, there's all sorts of discussions that can be had about how AC2's should be balanced (less heat?) but that's a discussion for somewhere else, and someone else, as I figure it's pretty much pointless to bother.

Anyways, yeah, there's a reason the AC2 does more DPS.

My problem isn't necessarily the idea of the AC/2 having more Deeps than the AC/5 so much as PGI's chosen method of using the AC/2 as the baseline (lol) rather than the AC/5.

On the forum I have repeatedly asked for a slightly faster AC/2 cooldown (and a cooldown module!), which is not the same as smacking down the AC/5. It's not just the "relative balance" between the 2 and 5, it's about the relative balance of the AC/2 against every other weapon in the game. Nerfing the AC/5 might help the 2 against the 5 in that one comparison, but it doesn't help the 2 against anything else.

The comparison that I like to cling to is the AC/2 versus ERLL since they both would ideally share the similar role of extreme-range poking. Their tonnage values are also pretty close. The AC/5 changes don't help the AC/2 compete against the ERLL in long-range poking.


The AC/5 really only "overperforms" when it's either boated in 4+ quantities and/or paired with significant ballistic quirks. The latter of those is pretty easy to solve on a per-mech basis. Otherwise, a single AC/5 by itself is utterly useless and even 2 AC/5 are kind of mediocre. It takes at least 3 of them before the power curve swings in their favor.

Ultimately, the nerf was the result of The Nerfinator™ becoming fearful of GasGuzzler's predictions about ED coming true. Thus, Paul took preemptive action in the only way he knew how...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 27 September 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

On the forum I have repeatedly asked for a slightly faster AC/2 cooldown (and a cooldown module!), which is not the same as smacking down the AC/5.

To be fair, the idea of a cooldown module on top of all the other rate of fire quirks and skills doesn't really give me the greatest feeling since the idea of having a weapon that can both do stunlock and good DPS is not a good thing.

Then again, with the global cooldown nerf (still think it should've been a 25% increase to all recycle times though), they easily could've added both the module and buffed the ACs that aren't in the 5 class.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 September 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

To be fair, the idea of a cooldown module on top of all the other rate of fire quirks and skills doesn't really give me the greatest feeling since the idea of having a weapon that can both do stunlock and good DPS is not a good thing.

Then again, with the global cooldown nerf (still think it should've been a 25% increase to all recycle times though), they easily could've added both the module and buffed the ACs that aren't in the 5 class.

Well, the main reason for the CD Module nowadays is that nearly everything else has one. It makes the AC/2 be the odd man out, because apparently it's too hard to make one or something.

For the stunlock issue I think that reducing the impulse would be fair in the same patch that would add the CD Mod and/or base CD buff.

In a non-Paul world it would be possible to balance the AC/2 as having more upfront damage but lower DPS than it has now, but the current rules paradigm won't allow it. "But bruh, it's got a 2 in its name, that totally means it has to deal 2.0 damage per mouse click!"

Edited by FupDup, 27 September 2016 - 04:00 PM.

[Ultimax]

Wintersdark, on 27 September 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

This part sounds terrible, but I'm not sure it is.

I get how it's easy to think that they should just all have a nice linear increase in overall DPS, given they get bigger and heavier...

But there are a few factors that need to play into this as well.

You can fire+twist+fire+twist AC5's here, you cannot do that with AC2's. AC2's require constant facetime

This only applies to builds that have AC5s and PPCs, if your build only has AC 5s, you are basically going to end up staring down enemies to deal a consistent amount of damage.

A Mauler with 5 of them might be able to get away doing a fire > twist rotation due to having a 25 point alpha - everyone else is basically pissing into the wind.


I can tell you now, I don't play my Black Widow that way at all - I just look for opportune moments where I can let loose with a few salvos, twist and then get behind cover, relocate, etc. Ideally I want to catch someone when they are focused on someone else and just hammer the guns.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 September 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

If they would drop Energy Draw the weapon nerfs wouldn't be quite as bad.

There isn't anything to convince me that the nerfs happening to LLAS and LPL aren't awful.

They are a ridiculous knee jerk reaction to a meta that fell out of favor over 9 months ago.

Edited by Ultimax, 27 September 2016 - 04:03 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Ultimax, on 27 September 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

There isn't anything to convince me that the nerfs happening to LLAS and LPL aren't awful.

Yeah, they were silly.

The good nerfs were the blanket cooldown nerfs, IMHO. Most of the specific changes have been mixed at best, while the LL in particular was flat out bizarre.

But I'm certainly not going to get up in arms about it either, it's just one weapon's stats on the test server; there's no reason to assume those stats will go live (if ED goes live at all in the first place). And while you could say something like "derp PGI probably will" but once you start getting into random assumptions things go sideways fast. They could just nerf the hell out of a random weapon on live at any time, too - that certainly happens whenever the Dartboard of balance comes into play.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimax, on 27 September 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

There isn't anything to convince me that the nerfs happening to LLAS and LPL aren't awful.

They are a ridiculous knee jerk reaction to a meta that fell out of favor over 9 months ago.

I'm not saying they aren't, but without ED and GH they wouldn't be OMG horrible, they would still be dumb, but not as bad since you could stack more to make up for the lack of firepower and not have to volley fire them.

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 27 September 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

My problem isn't necessarily the idea of the AC/2 having more Deeps than the AC/5 so much as PGI's chosen method of using the AC/2 as the baseline (lol) rather than the AC/5.

On the forum I have repeatedly asked for a slightly faster AC/2 cooldown (and a cooldown module!), which is not the same as smacking down the AC/5. It's not just the "relative balance" between the 2 and 5, it's about the relative balance of the AC/2 against every other weapon in the game. Nerfing the AC/5 might help the 2 against the 5 in that one comparison, but it doesn't help the 2 against anything else.

The comparison that I like to cling to is the AC/2 versus ERLL since they both would ideally share the similar role of extreme-range poking. Their tonnage values are also pretty close. The AC/5 changes don't help the AC/2 compete against the ERLL in long-range poking.


The AC/5 really only "overperforms" when it's either boated in 4+ quantities and/or paired with significant ballistic quirks. The latter of those is pretty easy to solve on a per-mech basis. Otherwise, a single AC/5 by itself is utterly useless and even 2 AC/5 are kind of mediocre. It takes at least 3 of them before the power curve swings in their favor.

Ultimately, the nerf was the result of The Nerfinator™ becoming fearful of GasGuzzler's predictions about ED coming true. Thus, Paul took preemptive action in the only way he knew how...

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of this.

Just pointing out that the statement previously about the AC5 having less deeps than the AC2 sounds like it's a huge problem, but it's not really.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 27 September 2016 - 05:05 PM, said:

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of this.

Just pointing out that the statement previously about the AC5 having less deeps than the AC2 sounds like it's a huge problem, but it's not really.

It's not just about the end (AC/2 DPS vs AC/5), it's also about the means used to achieve the end.

I think that a lot of the community here (including you) would agree that the AC/2 is teh suck right now. Bringing other weapons down to the level of the AC/2, then, doesn't really make much sense.

Logically speaking, if Weapon A is underpowered, and Weapon B is balanced to be equal to Weapon A, doesn't that make Weapon B also underpowered?

[Requiemking]

FupDup, on 27 September 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

It's not just about the end (AC/2 DPS vs AC/5), it's also about the means used to achieve the end.

I think that a lot of the community here (including you) would agree that the AC/2 is teh suck right now. Bringing other weapons down to the level of the AC/2, then, doesn't really make much sense.

Logically speaking, if Weapon A is underpowered, and Weapon B is balanced to be equal to Weapon A, doesn't that make Weapon B also underpowered?

The problem is, this community has a hard time thinking about buffs. They find it easier to think in terms of nerfs, and sadly, PGI has picked up on that. I mean, the most requested thing in the game is nerfing any and all top performing Clan mechs.

[FupDup]

Requiemking, on 27 September 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

The problem is, this community has a hard time thinking about buffs. They find it easier to think in terms of nerfs, and sadly, PGI has picked up on that. I mean, the most requested thing in the game is nerfing any and all top performing Clan mechs.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, at least when it comes to weapons specifically. I don't see much ForumWarrior disapproval when it comes to buffing various guns like LBX. Even for mechs in some cases it's not that bad (although there will always be a few people who claim to get 2000 damage in one match with their stock Mist Lynx).

It's only in either high-end outlier cases (e.g. Kodiak-3) or any effective light mech ever that the ForumWarriors demand the nerfs.

It's our Balancing Overlords who truly have the fixation on the use of foam darts. The Nerfinator™ meme was created for a reason...

Edited by FupDup, 27 September 2016 - 06:30 PM.

[Ultimax]

FupDup, on 27 September 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

The AC/5 really only "overperforms" when it's either boated in 4+ quantities and/or paired with significant ballistic quirks.

This is the real joke of all of this.

An 8 ton weapon is basically irrelevant until you take 3 or 4 of them (or you take 2 of them stacked with some kind of energy solution - which isn't even good unless it's PPCs), and their answer is to nerf those weapons further.


We're back to why ED was an idea in the first place - to curb the current size of alphas that could be used.

Instead we are now nerfing weapons that are already not very strong on their own.


Instead of dealing with what happens when you fire a bunch of weapons at once - they are now nerfing the weapons themselves which further destroys the balance for mechs that can't boat either due to tonnage or hardpoint limits.