153 replies to this topic

[Duke Nedo]

Just a comparison for fun: Remember the outrageous DRG-1N that produced ~18 DPS at waist height with an alpha of 10? Yes, it was nerfed.

Fun fact: The DPS output 2x cUAC10 that doesn't jam is ~18.3 DPS and an alpha of 40. Not pinpoint, but much more so than 4 AC5 volleys from the Dragon. Any clan mech with 2x cUAC10 have time to twist between double-taps, that Dragon had to stare.

The DPS output of a KDK-3 that stagger-fires 4x cUAC puts out 29.8 DPS if it doesn't jam. The "alpha" is 2x40 and it's at shoulder-level. It delivers 80 points of damage in something like ~0.6-0.7 secs + flight-time, then it can twist.

The DPS output of 4x UAC5 boat is also just shy of 30 DPS if he's not jamming, though mounted on a slower and less durable platform than the KDK-3. It can twist immediately though.

I find it really strange that so many are surprised that (c)UACs are reined in a bit.

[Random Carnage]

FupDup, on 13 November 2016 - 11:21 PM, said:

How do we nerf the high-end boats while still keeping the single-mounts useful? I really don't know the answer to this question.

I abhor artificial game mechanics, however an option in this regard would be to track heat build up derived just from (U)AC's separately in addition to overall heat and use that slug chucker based heat scale as a direct % chance to jam in any given second of firing. A multi-gun boat would build up such heat faster, increasing the chance of one or more guns jamming using individual rolls for each gun each time they're fired. For this system to be workable, it would need to replace ghost heat, but would allow initial burst damage while limiting sustained damage.

I'd like to see this implemented along with energy weapons fed off the size of the engine. None of this arbitrary heat cap BS.

[Hades Trooper]

save the uac, increased chance to jam and longer time to clear jams isn't the answer. there bad enough as it is with the spray effect and yet IS AC's still are better even with there increased weight

[TheLuc]

Its not the first time the WAAC crowd will put on the shelf a weapon type. Just use the next best thing and that's it.

[STEF_]

El Bandito, on 14 November 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

I am pushing that agenda from now on.

I assume your agenda includes the erase of any ballistic quirks in IS mechs, now.
Since you say it's all ok with c-uac nerf, and there is a balance in ballistic compartment, there is no reason to see ballistic quirks on IS mechs (except gauss one)

Also, I remember perfectly you to state we already have a balance.

edit: also, please warn gman he must be wrong to add IS mechs in his comp tier list.
http://metamechs.com...ists/comp-list/

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 15 November 2016 - 03:23 AM.

[El Bandito]

Stefka Kerensky, on 15 November 2016 - 03:15 AM, said:

I assume your agenda includes the erase of any ballistic quirks in IS mechs, now.
Since you say it's all ok with c-uac nerf, and there is a balance in ballistic compartment, there is no reason to see ballistic quirks on IS mechs (except gauss one)

Also, I remember perfectly you to state we already have a balance.

edit: also, please warn gman he must be wrong to add IS mechs in his comp tier list.
http://metamechs.com...ists/comp-list/

1. As soon as Clan ballistics are balanced against IS ballistics then I will push for the removal/reduction of IS ballistic quirks, yes. For now, CGauss needs to be nerfed, in order to be balanced against 3 tons heavier IS Gauss. CLBXs and CMGs also need to be balanced against IS LBX10 and IS MG, but those weapon group actually need buffs.

2. We did have balance, but that balance was upset with the introduction of Clan Battlemechs. They showed us again clearly just how inferior IS tech really is. I want inferior mechs in MWO to have as little quirk crutches as possible, and for that both sides' techs need to be balanced against each other. And I am not budging from that view.

3. Every single IS mechs in GMan's tier list, including those that are considered best IS mechs, have significant amount of quirks just to be able to stand up against quirkless Clan mechs. That is not balance, that is a sham!

Edited by El Bandito, 15 November 2016 - 03:53 AM.

[STEF_]

El Bandito, on 15 November 2016 - 03:36 AM, said:

1. As soon as Clan ballistics are balanced against IS ballistics then I will push for the removal/reduction of IS ballistic quirks, yes. For now, CGauss needs to be nerfed, in order to be balanced against 3 tons heavier IS Gauss. CLBXs and CMGs also need to be balanced against IS LBX10 and IS MG, but those weapon group actually need buffs.

2. We did have balance, but that balance was upset with the introduction of Clan Battlemechs. They showed us again clearly just how inferior IS tech really is. I want inferior mechs in MWO to have as little quirk crutches as possible, and for that both sides' techs need to be balanced against each other. And I am not budging from that view.

Awesome, we agree on quirks removal and that's important, since quirks were added to balance.

Bomb Russ about removing IS ballistic quirks with twitter, thanks
(he blocked me...)

[Duke Nedo]

Heh, this is getting out of control. Let's look at the numbers, I made my own spreadsheet similar to the Reddit one, but I also included cooldown skill and modules. I also added a 5% quirk to the IS UAC5 corresponding to the Mauler.



So, for:
IS UAC5 the double-tap DPS gain will go from 26.6% to 18%, a dps-nerf of 6.83%.
Clan UAC5 it will go from 33% to 20.8%, a dps-nerf of 9.14%.
Clan UAC10 it will go from 46.6% to 23.3%, a dps-nerf of 15.8%.

Much more consistent.

If you compare the DPS gain going from AC5 to UAC5 it is a gain of 26.6% before the patch and only 18% after the patch. This comes at a cost of one slot and one ton. For clans this is moot since they only have UACs, but had cACs been a thing that upgrade would have come for 0 tons cost and 1 slot gain! After this patch, the UAC is a bit closer to the AC in performance. I'd still prefer UAC5 over AC5 in every imaginable case since you can mitigate some of the jams by adjusting your play so the benefit you get is greater than the average 20% DPS gain for 1 ton.

If you just take a step back, ignore the Paul-stole-my-toy-hurt and look at these numbers they are not unreasonable by themselves. It's more consistent that double-tap now gives +18-23.3% dps for (c)UAC5-10's instead of +26.6-46.4% depending on which AC you use. THAT's why cUAC10's were dis-proportionally powerful when double-tapping before the patch tonight.

If it's very much desirable to have mechs put out ~30 DPS, then yes, this is a nerf to these builds and if you want that DPS back it's better to reduce cooldowns on ALL ACs and UACs, but keep the smaller double-tap gain because that is causing more problems.

I would however argue the opposite, if PPC+Gauss now becomes too good because DPS went down by 10-15%, then instead increase PPC+Gauss cooldown by some 0.5 secs and see what that does to the game-play balance.

[Widowmaker1981]

El Bandito, on 15 November 2016 - 03:36 AM, said:

3. Every single IS mechs in GMan's tier list, including those that are considered best IS mechs, have significant amount of quirks just to be able to stand up against quirkless Clan mechs. That is not balance, that is a sham!

I disagree, actually. Since Clan weapons are lighter and smaller than the IS ones, in order to have 1-1 balance parity at the equipment level they would need to be actually worse than the IS ones, which totally doesnt fit the lore at all.

While i don't agree with all of the current implementation exactly, im fine with the idea that IS tech in an of itself being worse, but mechs having quirks to make them better when using the intended weapons - allows Clans to be customisable and good with whatever weapons you decide use on that mech, but IS needing to follow the core ethos of their mech in order to match that performance... Now Omnis do throw a spanner into the works because they are worse than Battlemechs and as such need quirks to compete, but are supposed to be the customisable ones not the pigeonholed ones.. but fixing that means ditching most of the Omnimech build rules.

[kapusta11]

The reasoning behind UAC nerfs is just stupid. "They outperform normal ACs" well no shіt, normal ACs suck, except for IS AC5s and ONLY when you boat 5 of them on a Mauler. Is there a decent 2-3 AC5 IS mech out there? No. Then WTF.

[El Bandito]

Widowmaker1981, on 15 November 2016 - 05:09 AM, said:

I disagree, actually. Since Clan weapons are lighter and smaller than the IS ones, in order to have 1-1 balance parity at the equipment level they would need to be actually worse than the IS ones, which totally doesnt fit the lore at all.

Clan weapons/equipments should be worse in performance than IS ones, as PGI already decided both sides to be equal, and Clan weapons/equipments are lighter and more compact. Current quirk reliance to counter Clan superiority is only widening mech disparity. Worst Clan Medium, for example, is never going to be worse than the worst IS Medium, due to how Clan tech works. Of course it is an unpopular idea, especially among Clanners, but it is the best way for balancing to work, with much less powercreeping. As I said, I am sick of even the best IS mechs requiring quirks to compete with quirkless Clan mechs.

Hell, I probably should have joined the Clan side from the start, just so I would've never felt what the underdogs have felt, and saved myself a lot of grief. Now that CW is a goner, guess I missed my ride.

kapusta11, on 15 November 2016 - 05:13 AM, said:

The reasoning behind UAC nerfs is just stupid. "They outperform normal ACs" well no shіt, normal ACs suck, except for IS AC5s and ONLY when you boat 5 of them on a Mauler. Is there a decent 2-3 AC5 IS mech out there? No. Then WTF.

Funny how before Clans arrived, there were decent 2-3 AC5 mechs and most ACs didn't flat out suck. PGI is now trying to deal with the powercreep they made, in their own way, I suppose.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 November 2016 - 05:40 AM.

[Snowbluff]

El Bandito, on 14 November 2016 - 01:55 AM, said:

Hah! That will actually force many Clanners to grow more skill, cause Gauss+PPC combo is much harder to pull off than mindless double tapping UACs or using Streak 6s. I'm fine with that. I'll still be lurming and using AC2 macro-fire juuust fine. Heck, this is even better news for brawlers, as PPFLD loses even more badly vs. brawlers.

No it isn't. A UACer has to track the enemies motion (like a laser)and lead the target (like a AC). That makes Gauss PPC way easier, and it's already more effective. A Gauss PPC build is easier to aim and doesn't give the enemy the opportunity to spread damage.

Also, I'm sick of this UAC DPS = AC dps. UAC is how clans make up for not having ballastic quirks. They're already worse weapons due to the duration. Compared to PPC Gauss, you might have inflated damage numbers, but the truth is a lot of that damage is wasted.

Quote

Too bad, PGI could have saved themselves a lot of grief if they implemented Sized Hardpoints from the start. No more 5xAC5 Mauler.

Sized harpoints are fundamentally dysfunctional. They hurt customization and would just end whole chassis.

Quote

Huginn, Oxide... there were exceptions. TBF, nerfing Clan base tech is exactly what was needed, for IS to catch up to Clanners fundamentally, without relying on uber quirks, even on their best mechs.
Now I want 12 ton CGauss to be balanced against 15 ton IS Gauss.

BUt you admit the IS has quirks... but won't admit that a Gauss with quirks has it's own strengths?

Edited by Snowbluff, 15 November 2016 - 05:48 AM.

[Duke Nedo]

kapusta11, on 15 November 2016 - 05:13 AM, said:

The reasoning behind UAC nerfs is just stupid. "They outperform normal ACs" well no shіt, normal ACs suck, except for IS AC5s and ONLY when you boat 5 of them on a Mauler. Is there a decent 2-3 AC5 IS mech out there? No. Then WTF.

I used to know a dragon... nevermind.

Anyways, nerfing UACs a bit is not wrong, and perhaps more importantly: evening out the double-tap DPS-gain between cUAC1, cUAC5 and cUAC10 was a good move for the greater balance of things. cUAC10 was getting much more gain from double-tapping than a cUAC5, and the worst case was the cUAC2 that lost DPS when double-tapping... that is also fixed now. Perhaps macro-fired cUAC2-boats will be a thing tonight?

I would agree that the changes are incomplete alone. They should probably also have nerfed PPC and Gauss cooldown by some, and perhaps even buffed the cooldown a tiny bit for normal AC's, then we would have been golden.

[Widowmaker1981]

El Bandito, on 15 November 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

Hell, I probably should have joined the Clan side from the start, just so I would've never felt what the underdogs have felt, and saved myself a lot of grief. Now that CW is a goner, guess I missed my ride.

Or maybe have been a Merc, to escape the bias in both directons?

Its a failing to assume everyone has an affiliation with a specific faction.

[El Bandito]

Widowmaker1981, on 15 November 2016 - 05:59 AM, said:

Or maybe have been a Merc, to escape the bias in both directons?

Its a failing to assume everyone has an affiliation with a specific faction.

Except all the big mercs traditionally went for the Clan side--gee I wonder why--nevermind that Clans having Mercs is a huge huge blow to lore in the first place. Also, it is not a failing to assume mostly Clanners are crying about this change.

Snowbluff, on 15 November 2016 - 05:46 AM, said:

BUt you admit the IS has quirks... but won't admit that a Gauss with quirks has it's own strengths?

I don't want IS Gauss with quirks! I want Clan and IS Gauss to have similar level of effectiveness, factoring in the fact that Clan Gauss is 3 tons lighter, 1 slot smaller. Tech balance first, then quirks on bad mechs for both sides. That's my motto.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 November 2016 - 06:16 AM.

[Battlemaster56]

El Bandito, on 15 November 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

I don't want IS Gauss with quirks! I want Clan and IS Gauss to have similar level of effectiveness, factoring in the fact that Clan Gauss is 3 tons lighter, 1 slot smaller. Tech balance first, then quirks on bad mechs for both sides. That's my motto.

They both need a wind up charge before firing, both deal same amount of damage, fire the same amount of distance and have relatively same speeds. They're basically the same despite the two things that separate them.

Tech will never be balanced if we gonna balance a peanut to pear, all we doing is just dumbing down both sides until the tech differnce is so similar that both sides lose their identity.

[El Bandito]

Battlemaster56, on 15 November 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

They both need a wind up charge before firing, both deal same amount of damage, fire the same amount of distance and have relatively same speeds. They're basically the same despite the two things that separate them.

Tech will never be balanced if we gonna balance a peanut to pear, all we doing is just dumbing down both sides until the tech differnce is so similar that both sides lose their identity.

There are ways to make them sufficiently different but equal in terms of power. And Gauss is NEVER gonna lose its identity of low heat 15 PPFLD.

[Duke Nedo]

Battlemaster56, on 15 November 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

They both need a wind up charge before firing, both deal same amount of damage, fire the same amount of distance and have relatively same speeds. They're basically the same despite the two things that separate them.

Tech will never be balanced if we gonna balance a peanut to pear, all we doing is just dumbing down both sides until the tech differnce is so similar that both sides lose their identity.

Nobody wants everything to be the same... different but of equivalent power. Gauss is more troublesome because they are basically identical but come with a 3 ton tax for IS for no reason other than that lore says that they should be worse. I don't care so much for explosion chances as a balance metric, but things could be done with increased range/velocity or cooldown perhaps. In any case, the most common use is dual gauss and in that case 6 tons is really a lot! Take a dual-gauss jager, it would have been a completely different mech with 6 more tons to spare.

[Battlemaster56]

Duke Nedo, on 15 November 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

Nobody wants everything to be the same... different but of equivalent power. Gauss is more troublesome because they are basically identical but come with a 3 ton tax for IS for no reason other than that lore says that they should be worse. I don't care so much for explosion chances as a balance metric, but things could be done with increased range/velocity or cooldown perhaps. In any case, the most common use is dual gauss and in that case 6 tons is really a lot! Take a dual-gauss jager, it would have been a completely different mech with 6 more tons to spare.

So to balance the gauss it have to be this: IS gauss get better ranger and it flys faster while clans will have shorter range and fly slow to the target, it adding unnecessary changes to both sides for a similar weapon that only be separated by a 3 tons and 2 slots. An IS Medium around 50 tons can take an IS gauss, same goes for Clans for any mech below 50 tons to take a guass rifle will have to make very drastic changes into their build IS or Clans.

[El Bandito]

Battlemaster56, on 15 November 2016 - 06:47 AM, said:

So to balance the gauss it have to be this: IS gauss get better ranger and it flys faster while clans will have shorter range and fly slow to the target, it adding unnecessary changes to both sides for a similar weapon that only be separated by a 3 tons and 2 slots.

That's a big difference. And once you factor in the fact that chassis mounting CGauss has pre-built free CASE preventing CGauss explosion from affecting adjacent sections (even on the arms!), and has single ST death proof XL engine, it snowballs.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 November 2016 - 06:57 AM.