62 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Hit the Deck, on 20 January 2017 - 07:38 PM, said:

i read it as they don't want to widen the gap between isXL and STD (particularly on the bigger ones because of the increasingly wider tonnage difference) by making isXL able to survive ST loss.

I might believe that if they hadn't also said they've seen a lot of chat on how to balance the engines come from the community. But they did say that, which means they should have also been aware that buffing the STD has been discussed in equal measure, because it comes up every single time we talk about buffing the XL.

[jonfett]

This game is so messed up with all of the constant nerfs. They didn't buff anything; they just moved points laterally from one section to another. It's nerf after nerf with no good reason, except "do you wanna buy a mech pack?" to get the new meta. Why do I keep coming back?...ugh!!

Edited by jonfett, 20 January 2017 - 07:49 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

FupDup, on 20 January 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

You're making the assumption that any buffs will be to firepower and any nerfs will be to firepower.

Buffs to structure/armor or even agility would increase TTK. Nerfs to structure/armor/agility on the other hand make TTK go down.

That, and even if firepower was buffed, it would have to be pretty large to exceed the current maximum pinnacle builds.


So no, buffs don't automatically make things die faster and nerfs don't automatically make everybody live longer. It's the TYPE and MAGNITUDE of buff or nerf that matters.

Exactly this. For example, the lowest performing Atlases got their structure turned into armor while the S and DDC kept their bonus only as structure. Meanwhile the entire Atlas line is underperforming compared to the likes of Kodiak-3s and anything that outranges it and moves faster. I feel they could have given the D some energy heat gen quirks to offset its number of lasers and upgraded the structure to armor on all of the variants, D still having the majority of the armor. This would give the Atlases that people actually consider using a more competitive edge and open up the underused variants for thought.

Mechs like the Dragon could definitely use structure and armor quirks far higher than that of the Linebacker that started out with its great durability quirks along with mobility boosts. Also how about the forgotten mechs such as Trebuchet, Kintaro, and the once great Wolverine? Why can't they go and get some god quirks back so they can compare with the completely unquirked Hunchback IIC and so the IS has something for scouting other than the Griffin 2n?

The thing is, the majority of players just playing the game rarely think of TTK outside of us forum guys and some comp guys, most people just want their mech to have something its good at. Rather than nerfing every mech down into utter blandness, give each mech a specialization that it is really good at.

Look at the Thunderbolt line for example, we have one that is great at ERPPC, one that is great at MPLs, one for LPL, and another for large lasers. Can we get some boosts like those on all the forgotten mechs?

Maybe they just aren't working with quirks much at all because they see the skill trees coming out soon, maybe this explains why they're doing nothing but armor and mobility base stat boosts, that's what I'm hoping. I just hope the terrible mechs get quite a few extra points to throw into their boost stats.

[Y E O N N E]

Dakota1000, on 20 January 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

Maybe they just aren't working with quirks much at all because they see the skill trees coming out soon, maybe this explains why they're doing nothing but armor and mobility base stat boosts, that's what I'm hoping. I just hope the terrible mechs get quite a few extra points to throw into their boost stats.

I just don't think the skill tree should be used to supercharge 'Mechs that otherwise suck. I feel like the base game should be more or less fine, and the skill tree should let you specialize a little more one way at the expense of other ways.

[Nightmare1]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 January 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

I'm not even referring strictly to pop-tarting.

'Mechs like the Blackjack and Hunchback are gun-bags. They operate near the edge of the team to pour fire on an otherwise occupied target. That's even what they do in comps. They harass. And when they don't harass, they commit on a push with everybody else. You don't need to be running near the same speeds that Lights do to do this, not even close. 87.1 kph is perfectly adequate; JJs are more important than speed.

I mean, you can build the IIC for brawl and for that purpose it is perhaps too slow, but that's really a waste of its potential. It doesn't have the durability or geometry for that. The only reason the IS HBK-4SP is taken is because it has unholy levels of durability quirks, else it would suck, too.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying. The bottomline, is that the HBK-IIC did not need a nerf at all, yet PGI nerfed it anyways. There are better poptart Mechs available that do not suffer from the same drawbacks as the HBK-IIC, yet they are ignored. That is what I was driving at with my original post.

I am well aware of how to operate HBKs. I've consistently ranked in the upper divisions of HBK pilots every time there is an HBK Event. My post was also never about speed; it was about the fact that the HBK IIC, which already suffers from a lack of agility and quirks (balanced by its firepower), is being nerfed when it is already at a good spot and does not need the nerf.

You can read whatever you want out of what I said, but you would be missing the point if you continued to imagine me saying things that simply aren't there.

[Idealsuspect]

W A R K H A N, on 20 January 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

Who knows...my shadowcats all got nerfed for being over performing mediums. Say what now?

By overperfom with this ecm medium agaisnt average potatoes you, iron something, we did make shadowcat stats touch the sky
Now take another mech and kill tonns of potatoes and they will nerf another mech lol.

Edited by Idealsuspect, 20 January 2017 - 08:18 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

In general I feel that the adjustments are going in the right direction. The Warhammer adjustment is curious but when compared to the similar adjustment that the Shadow Cat got, it does not look like that big of a change. The comp (MRBC) players seem to view the WHM as interchangeable with the TBR in most drops. I hope the NGR and TBR receive similar adjustments next month to even the playing field. I favor reining in the strongest Mechs and helping the weakest Mechs. It was nice to see some of the lesser performing IS Mechs get some help.

Clans seem to have taken the brunt of the negative adjustments but some thing like the MG ROF is offset with last month's changes to the weapon that made it much more effective. Most of the Mechs that had ROF quirks lost them with that change. It is no surprise that the few that still had them either lost them or had them lowered. The last few patches seem to have targeted Clan Mechs and Clan weapons much more than IS. Apparently they are continuing to try to narrow the firepower gap with the IS.

As far as the cXL engine versus the ISXL engine debate, I am a proponent of equalizing IS armor on all three torso to make it equally difficult to kill a side torso as a center torso and thus balancing them somewhat with the Clan loosing a center torso. We will see how the heat performance reduction change works with the loss of s ST. Even though that only affects engine heatsinks, the most practical place to mount external heatsinks is usually the STs so if a Clan Mech loses a side torso it will lose those also. I think that will make the Mech "as good as dead" but it will still be better than the IS XL equipped Mech which actually will be dead.

Nightmare1, on 20 January 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

You're reading too much into what I'm saying. The bottomline, is that the HBK-IIC did not need a nerf at all, yet PGI nerfed it anyways. There are better poptart Mechs available that do not suffer from the same drawbacks as the HBK-IIC, yet they are ignored. That is what I was driving at with my original post.

I believe the adjustments to the HBK IIC, HNM and SMN were all due to the erPPC poptarting and hill hugging sniper trend that is taking over. I see it in my games and I watch it on the streams. It is quite prevalent. The HBK has the high hardpoints and jump jets to make it a superior platform for that style of play and the HBK IIC is widely recognized as the best Medium in the game. Remember the Nova, which you mentioned as a superior poptarter has received negative adjustments three times since the re-scale and its stature and hardpoints are very much inferior to those of the HBK for poptarting or as a hill humping sniper.

Edited by Rampage, 20 January 2017 - 09:00 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Nightmare1, on 20 January 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

There are better poptart Mechs available that do not suffer from the same drawbacks as the HBK-IIC, yet they are ignored. That is what I was driving at with my original post.

There aren't. I hope you aren't thinking the Nova, Huntsman, Blackjack, Shadowcat, Phoenix Haw, or Vindicator are better pop-tarts, because they most definitely are not and they all have stiffer drawbacks including being even slower, lacking the tonnage for heat-sinks, having lower hard-points, using IS XL, using IS (ER)PPC without splash, or even simply having less armor. If they were better you'd have seen them in MWOWC finals, but you didn't. Instead, you saw HBK-IIC and IIC-A for days.

If you are thinking of the Heavies, by PGI's thinking they should be better, but the SMN is receiving a nerf this time around.

[sharknoise]

Balancing mechs against their weight class only doesn't make sense. Look at pug queue percentage. As long as lights are played two times less often than heavies, they are underpowered as a class and none of them should receive any nerfs, it must be only buffs to weaker lights. Mediums see more play, but still less than heavies and assaults. That means weaker mediums should receive minor buffs, and stronger ones left as they are. Then weaken some of the best heavies and a couple of assaults. There, weight classes and wait times in the single queue will be more balanced.

Edited by sharknoise, 21 January 2017 - 02:07 AM.

[kapusta11]

Prosperity Park, on 20 January 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

They could buff underperforming Mechs to reduce average TTK, or they can nerf OverPerformers to increase average TTK.

What do you think the overall playerbase wants more - lower or higher TTK?

How is buffing worthless mechs going to reduce TTK?

You have mech X which is the best mech in its weight class and everyone plays it.
You have mech Y which is bad and no one plays it.
You buff Y so that it is as strong as X. Now instead of seeing 3-4 X mechs on the battlefield you see the same 3-4 mechs of a given weight class only now it's a X/Y mix.
Why would TTK change?

Edited by kapusta11, 21 January 2017 - 10:59 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Prosperity Park, on 20 January 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

They could buff underperforming Mechs to reduce average TTK, or they can nerf OverPerformers to increase average TTK.

What do you think the overall playerbase wants more - lower or higher TTK?

ecept illogical statement,

people use the best mechs, they have a specific ttk
then there is those inferior mechs, which are only sued by tryhard chassis lovers or potatoes. but thsoe emchs ttk is higher
When PGi buffs these inferior mechs, they will not lower ttk because these emchs in a proepr skilled surrounding arent sued to affekt ttk. And if they already lower tkk because they are inferior and mostly die quicker than the meta ones). So buffing the underperformers would noth further reduce ttk, it would in best case just mean the alerady existing ttk stays but is now achieved with more various mechs.
however nerfing overperformers is indeed a way to affect ttk and incrase it.

[3xnihilo]

One draw back to the "nerf only" model of balancing is that it tends be perceived negatively by the player base, while buffs produce a little more excitement. For instance, Kodiaks needed nerfed, they got nerfed, That is good. It did not make me excited to go play my Kodiaks the minute the patch launched. But, a buff to machine guns gets me back in the mechlab excited to try things out (until I realized it wasn't a real buff, just a transfer of quirks to the general stats of the mg).

In general, using both nerfs and buffs makes the game play a little more dynamic and exciting. No one plays a vindicator and thinks "it would be nice if Timberwolves were this bad." That doesn't mean the Vindicator can't get a little love.

[Cold Darkness]

sharknoise, on 21 January 2017 - 01:54 AM, said:

Balancing mechs against their weight class only doesn't make sense. Look at pug queue percentage. As long as lights are played two times less often than heavies, they are underpowered as a class and none of them should receive any nerfs, it must be only buffs to weaker lights. Mediums see more play, but still less than heavies and assaults. That means weaker mediums should receive minor buffs, and stronger ones left as they are. Then weaken some of the best heavies and a couple of assaults. There, weight classes and wait times in the single queue will be more balanced.

did it ever occur to you that heavys are the most popular class simply because they offer the most customization without major drawbacks and are with this simple reason the most appealing weight class regardless of how powerful they are?

[PAYWALL]

I don't get the fact, that new quirks are still released. I thought PGI wanted to introduce a overall new system, which was announced at mechcon? I guess the new duct tape items have a symbolical meaning for the design process.

[Widowmaker1981]

Scout Derek, on 20 January 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

Poptarting. With LPL or PPCs. Effective Sniper.

And this is a problem why?

1) you cant poptart with LPLs, unless you are a terribad who thinks that red cursor flash = success.
2) it is insanely hot with 2 PPCs. yeah, thats how i run it and i love it, because its really fun to drive, but calling it OP is giving no credit to the fact that it has truly abysmal dps.

[Nightmare1]

Rampage, on 20 January 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

I believe the adjustments to the HBK IIC, HNM and SMN were all due to the erPPC poptarting and hill hugging sniper trend that is taking over. I see it in my games and I watch it on the streams. It is quite prevalent. The HBK has the high hardpoints and jump jets to make it a superior platform for that style of play and the HBK IIC is widely recognized as the best Medium in the game. Remember the Nova, which you mentioned as a superior poptarter has received negative adjustments three times since the re-scale and its stature and hardpoints are very much inferior to those of the HBK for poptarting or as a hill humping sniper.

I don't actually see much CERPPC poptarting in game, so I do not think it is the pandemic you make it out to be. Hill humping is a big deal, certainly, but the Summoner suffers from low weapon mounts (arms) which makes it difficult to hill hump with it.

The HBK-IIC high hardpoints are definitely useful, but it is a stretch to call it the "best Medium in the game." Personally speaking, I think that there are other, better Mediums available. I also disagree with you about the Nova. It's side torso weapon mounts are very close to cockpit level, much like the HBK-IICs, which makes it just as good at poptarting. The Nova's better jump ability and greater agility actually makes it a bit better. I run both Mechs heavily. Compared to the Nova, my HBK-IIC feels ponderous. The Nova feels more responsive and my accuracy is better with it as a result. I also don't receive as much damage when poptarting with it because of its smaller profile and faster jump.

[sharknoise]

Cold Darkness, on 21 January 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

they offer the most customization without major drawbacks
regardless of how powerful they are

The absence of drawbacks equals the presence of power. So you kind of contradict yourself when you say it's not about power. Everone ends up customizing in the end, because having one optimal build for 3 variants you bought gets boring fast (and often it's not even possible). If the number of powerful variants and loadouts for heavies is higher, then they tend to be more powerful in general.

Edited by sharknoise, 21 January 2017 - 05:02 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 January 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

There aren't. I hope you aren't thinking the Nova, Huntsman, Blackjack, Shadowcat, Phoenix Haw, or Vindicator are better pop-tarts, because they most definitely are not and they all have stiffer drawbacks including being even slower, lacking the tonnage for heat-sinks, having lower hard-points, using IS XL, using IS (ER)PPC without splash, or even simply having less armor. If they were better you'd have seen them in MWOWC finals, but you didn't. Instead, you saw HBK-IIC and IIC-A for days.

If you are thinking of the Heavies, by PGI's thinking they should be better, but the SMN is receiving a nerf this time around.

Actually, out of all those Mechs you listed, I was mainly considering the Nova. It's agility and jump ability is better than the HBK-IIC. When I jump with my HBKs, I feel sluggish, but my Nova feels nimble. It's responsive, allowing me to make better snapshots. The weapon mounts between both Mechs are comparable, as are their top speeds, but the Nova's smaller profile and better jump ability makes it harder to hit. I actually take less damage in a Nova and produce as much damage or more than when I pilot a HBK-IIC for poptarting.

As for being slower (I don't own the Huntsman, so I'll ignore it), none of those Mechs you listed are slower than the HBK-IIC except for possibly the BJ.

I didn't see any Mechs in the MWOWC Finals because I decided not to waste my time watching anything MWOWC related. I play my own Mechs against a large pool of players and, based on how the Mechs perform, that is how I rank them. I don't rely on someone else's website's estimation, or what a handful of people on a couple of teams decided to use as a tactic, to determine whether one Mech is better than another.

All that being said, the Summoner really didn't need the nerf. *scowls*

[Tristan Winter]

I agree in many regards, but the best way to fix the balance between weight classes (e.g. best light mech vs best heavy mech) is to nerf all heavy mechs. Otherwise every light mech in the game needs uber-quirks like the Locust.

I'm not happy with weight class balance untill the weight restrictions are practically meaningless, until 12 Locusts is as viable as 12 Night Gyrs or 12 Kodiaks. We're very far from that place. In order to get there, some nerfs are required. They may be global nerfs to certain weight classes by manipulating the core rules for mobility (e.g. decouple turn rate from engine size), but some nerfs will be required.

It makes no sense to have an arena shooter without respawns where the 4 classes of mechs are not equally powerful. Either we need respawns or we need better class balance. People talk about how it breaks Battletech lore when Dire Wolves aren't better than all light mechs and medium mechs. Well, it also breaks lore when light mechs are as rare as unicorns. In lore, the Locust is the most common mech in the galaxy. In MWO, I see 10 Night Gyrs for every Locust.

Edited by Tristan Winter, 21 January 2017 - 05:09 AM.

[Cold Darkness]

sharknoise, on 21 January 2017 - 05:01 AM, said:

The absence of drawbacks equals the presence of power. So you kind of contradict yourself when you say it's not about power. Everone ends up customizing in the end, because having one optimal build for 3 variants you bought gets boring fast (and often it's not even possible). If the number of powerful variants and loadouts for heavies is higher, then they tend to be more powerful in general.

you are missing the point. what i wrote is, that heavys are popular by design. even if they would be the weakest weight class, they have a very high chance to still be the most popular.