41 replies to this topic

[DGTLDaemon]

Excalibaard, on 07 June 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Because they want to increase the Time To Kill. Armor values are twice that of the original tabletop game already since beta, but mechs still die super quickly, the game is unforgiving for new players that have trouble piloting.

IMO the problem is that one out of position mech can be shot at by 12 mechs instead of 8 or 4, but I think there was something about the servers that made 12v12 optimal for PGI.

Fair enough. But still, the Skill Tree was implemented in a way that clearly favors armor/structure over mobility. PGI are giving players an opportunity to make their mechs tougher than before, but at the same time the most you can achieve by investing into the mobility tree is bring your mech to roughly the same level as before (with the exception of a few chassis that got a huge boost to their mobility values "because balance"). This just doesn't sit well with me.

[Dago Red]

DGTLDaemon, on 07 June 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

You got me wrong I wasn't referring to loss of value of large engines. What I was trying to say is: if you want to have the same armor as before, you don't need to do anything, but if you want to have the same mobility as before, you have to invest skill points. If PGI reduced mobility across the board to accommodate for the skill tree, why didn't they also reduce the armor/structure values? Why does the skill tree allow you to have more armor than before, but at the same time force you to invest skill points in mobility simply to bring your mech to a playable level?

And that's ignoring the mechs that move worse than they ever did before even with a max mobility tree.

King Crabs got their knees broken and they already were generally considered a sub optimal choice.

And I'm hearing bad things about most lights on that front as well. Only taken my Urbies out since myself so I can't really comment on lights as a whole.

[Ruar]

Some good insight, I especially like your ideas about operations and JJ. Right now I use neither tree and I only play mechs with JJ on them. The cost is just too high for the return.

I disagree about radar dep being reduced to 75%. I was running 60% and ended up going all the way to 100% because it was still just too much incoming fire. I'm opposed to strong indirect fire and I think LRMs should primarily be used in the direct fire role. Which means radar dep would have no bearing if the LRM mech was having to get LOS on their target. Weakening radar dep just makes indirect fire stronger and the game is worse for that.

I agree about lack of meaningful reward. I wait until I save up 5000exp before I go into the skill tree just so I can feel like I'm doing something. Even then the changes are minimal and just a let down. They really needed to make the tree with much fewer nodes, linear in design, and just have increased cost the deeper you go down an individual branch. You can keep the effective skills with a high cost and at the same time have the less used skills cost one point each so people can round out a build. Overall the ST is a letdown simply because they designed it so poorly.

[Excalibaard]

Ruar, on 07 June 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

Some good insight, I especially like your ideas about operations and JJ. Right now I use neither tree and I only play mechs with JJ on them. The cost is just too high for the return.

I disagree about radar dep being reduced to 75%. I was running 60% and ended up going all the way to 100% because it was still just too much incoming fire. I'm opposed to strong indirect fire and I think LRMs should primarily be used in the direct fire role. Which means radar dep would have no bearing if the LRM mech was having to get LOS on their target. Weakening radar dep just makes indirect fire stronger and the game is worse for that.

I agree about lack of meaningful reward. I wait until I save up 5000exp before I go into the skill tree just so I can feel like I'm doing something. Even then the changes are minimal and just a let down. They really needed to make the tree with much fewer nodes, linear in design, and just have increased cost the deeper you go down an individual branch. You can keep the effective skills with a high cost and at the same time have the less used skills cost one point each so people can round out a build. Overall the ST is a letdown simply because they designed it so poorly.

Thanks for the support.

I think you should approach your disagreement differently: the reason that radar derp 100% exists allows missiles currently to be so strong. Because of ECM, AMS and Derp - which are pre-game insurance policies against LRMs - they are either completely useless against you if someone/you brought enough countermeasures, or are very strong if people didn't bother. With the randomness of matchmaker (and how many of your matched people like Polar Highlands), I think this is an unhealthy way to implement this otherwise unique weapon system.
That's the reason that I wish to change these countermeasures first, and then when the more extreme cases are brought together, the average performance of LRMs can be evaluated and adjusted to be fair against other, direct fire systems.
AMS could probably also use a touchup, where it destroys a percentage of the missiles instead of linearly balancing the launcher sizes vs amount of equipped AMS on the other team. Say, 1 AMS destroys 30% of missiles aimed at you, stacking multiplicatively, and it destroys 15% of missiles aimed at others, stacking multiplicatively. Something like that would also increase the average damage that a missiles slvo does, as the minimum damage is no longer 0%. The new average value can them be adjusted to be lower, for example reducing missile velocity or damage.

[Sjorpha]

Excalibaard, on 08 June 2017 - 02:45 AM, said:

the reason that radar derp 100% exists allows missiles currently to be so strong. Because of ECM, AMS and Derp - which are pre-game insurance policies against LRMs - they are either completely useless against you if someone/you brought enough countermeasures, or are very strong if people didn't bother.

LRMs are not strong regardless of whether countermeasures are taken. They are either useless or mediocre.

Rare occasions they are almost decent, if you're on the perfect map against a badly coordinated team with no counters, but even then they aren't very strong compared to ERLL boating or PPC/gauss.

The reason people get frustrated with LRMs is because being killed by indirect fire feels extra bad somehow, and the reasons people take them are that they are easy to use and make some opponents angry. None of those reasons involve them being actually strong weapons. There's a reason LRMs don't see competitive play.

Now I don't think LRMs should be buffed to the point where they would see competitive play, because that would make them too dominant in QP solo queue, but they should definitely not be weaker than they are now. Indirect fire is not a bad thing either, the game needs to have something more than direct fire in it, don't see why that should be nerfed.

[Excalibaard]

Sjorpha, on 08 June 2017 - 04:51 AM, said:

LRMs are not strong regardless of whether countermeasures are taken. They are either useless or mediocre.

Rare occasions they are almost decent, if you're on the perfect map against a badly coordinated team with no counters, but even then they aren't very strong compared to ERLL boating or PPC/gauss.

The reason people get frustrated with LRMs is because being killed by indirect fire feels extra bad somehow, and the reasons people take them are that they are easy to use and make some opponents angry. None of those reasons involve them being actually strong weapons. There's a reason LRMs don't see competitive play.

Now I don't think LRMs should be buffed to the point where they would see competitive play, because that would make them too dominant in QP solo queue, but they should definitely not be weaker than they are now. Indirect fire is not a bad thing either, the game needs to have something more than direct fire in it, don't see why that should be nerfed.

Considering that 95% of people play non-competitive QP, I agree with your last statement. Also, yes, LRMs don't see competitive play because people playing competitively will be much more familiar with the game and ways to play against certain compositions. But, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be streamlined into a more reliable weapon. Going on a limb here, they're especially powerful as a suppression weapon, forcing people into cover or insurance policies. What if cooldown was made longer, and damage increased? That might give windows of opportunity to get close to boats, and highen the need for a backup weapon during cooldown.

Neverminding the intricacies, LRMs should be a weapon system that is less variable due to pre-game circumstance and in that way made viable in more tiers of play.

Edited by Excalibaard, 09 June 2017 - 06:16 AM.

[Excalibaard]

HGAK47, on 07 June 2017 - 02:23 AM, said:

Interesting take OP, I dont fully support you especially on the ECM and Radar derp side of things however I too do feel that the jump jet tree is by far one of the most weak ways to spend SP.

The heat gen in the JJ section might be worthy for some mechs but aside from that its a little weak. Especially the forward thrust ones, they grant practically nothing for the SP. (like 4m/s to 8m/s forward movement for like 5 SP, whoopie!)

As for the skill tree its had its ups and downs for sure. Overall im quite happy with how things turned out but there are major balance concerns now with some mechs.
I would really like to see PGI in the next weeks to release info on the underperforming mechs. Also mechs that were always very starved for hard points (Spider 5V, Locust with single energy mount etc...) have been hit quite hard with quirk reductions.

Other mechs have suffered from engine decoupling that I believe were not intended. (Some of the lights and medium mechs with large engines feel very sluggish, Spirit Bear masc concerns etc..)

Overall - fairly good I just hope PGI are prepared to address some balance issues moving forward.

Just realised I never took the time to respond to you, sorry.
A lot of people seem to dislike my ideas about ECM/derp, so I guess that's just a difference of opinion. I think changes like these are necessary steps to take in order to bring LRMs into a less volatile spot and inherently part of the balance adjustments.

The sluggish feel of high engined mechs is mostly just relative to their previous performance. I am a fan of engine decoupling in the end, having high speed in itself is already very powerful in terms of establishing map control until your heavier team catches up. I don't think mechs should go back to their old mobility, except that 100ton mechs seem very disadvantaged against other assaults. The durability doesn't add up against the heavily reduced mobility vs lighter assaults like a Stalker or Battlemaster.

[Acehilator]

Comparing before and after is useless. The new system is here to stay, and it won't see any kind of substantial overhaul in the foreseeable future. Deal with it or stop playing.

@DGTLDaemon: I have no idea why you are so hung up on this mobility/survival thing. All trees grant you access to features your mech could not have before (or at least not at the same time). And mobility is not the only tree in which you have to invest to get to or near the old baseline.

@Excalibaard: LRM nerf? Are you kidding me? If you cannot deal with LRMs with the currently available tools, you need to l2p. This is not an insult, just a statement of fact. If thousands of people around the world can do it, you can do it too.

LRMs are useless in comp play, 95% useless in group play, 90% useless in FW play, and viable in solo play. And they are fine this way. As was already said in this thread, buffing them to be viable in other game modes would make them gamebreaking OP in solo queue. So just leave them alone, with the energy rebalance and new tech coming PGI has enough on their plate regarding weapon systems.

[Gwahlur]

The problem with LRMs is really just with Polar Lurmlands, and the problem with Polar Lurmlands is LRMs.

Since the lurmlands are so open, you have all the LRMers voting for it, so you can be sure that 99% of the times you get that map, it'll be LRM hell.
On other maps LRMs can be avoided with varying degrees of success, making LRMers feel their lurms are weak. I would argue they're not weak though, as they do crowd control if used by someone who knows what they're doing.
On Polar Lurmlands, everyone else feel lurms are too strong, in part due to the layout of the map, and in part due to the amount of LRMers you will have in most/all Polar Lurmlands games.

[Davegt27]

pretty sad PGI has such a useless weapon in a game

a weapon that is 95% useless is a failure

and they want to add more weapons when they cant get the weapons that are in the
game right

I think we are headed for another train wreck

[Roadbuster]

DrSaphron, on 07 June 2017 - 02:01 AM, said:

A prime example of this "perfect nerf bat" can be seen on the PHX-2. Before all the sweeping changes the GO-TO loadout was 6 med pulse lasers, a few extra heat sinks, and a BIG DUMB ENGINE! Now with the whole rework it is A LOT slower, less agile, and runs waaay too hot, not to mention the crippled ECM. Now it's an over sized 45 ton moving body bag, unable to dance out of the way of incoming fire, dish out damage, or really be combat effective at all. This is a stark contrast from when they first launched with laughably under armored arms that would fall off with very little provocation. When the PHX first dropped I could pull off around 800 damage and 6 dead mechs, RELIABLY! Now I struggle to break 300 damage and 2 dead mechs simply because it is so incredibly slow in every possible way.

Then PGI did something right. Because if a 45t mech is able to take out half the enemy team reliably, it means there's something wrong.
And to stop the arguing before it starts, Yes I own a PHX and it's easy to play, very fast and agile and I get good reliable results even with SHS.


On topic:
There's just a few things I don't like about the ST.
In the armor tree you have to chose either "AMS Overload" or "Shock Absorbance". Usually that's no problem if that mech has AMS or JJ, but I hava a number of mechs which don't use either, but I have no chance but to "waste" a SP for something I don't want or need.

Yes, I know. 1st world problems

[MustrumRidcully]

The skill tree is a bit ... shizophrenic in some regard. Some skills seem to grant you a lot for one point. The +1 Consumable represents a 100 % buff, basically, while with all the range nodes, you just get a +10 or +15 % bonus. That might even be justified since range is involved i nalmost everything you do. However, then compared to something like the jump jet skills...

The ECM skill seems neccessary to justify the cost of picking an ECM platform. It seems mismatched a bit.

The Survival tree buffs mechs based on their tonnage, with lower tonnage mech getting more armor then higher tonnage mech. But the mobility tree buffs everyone the same percentage, so a low mobiilty mech gets little out of the tree, while a high mobility tree gets a lot.
The Range skill has a similar problem IMO - the higher your weapon's range is already, the more you get out of it.

[B0oN]

Mister Glitchdragon, on 31 May 2017 - 05:10 AM, said:

Most skill tree QQ would evaporate if PGI would issue a little gold star for each mech with 91 skill points allotted in their tree (doesn't matter where).

That way, the Pokemon crew can get their star and display their collectibles, never to be played again, just like before the ST.

Funnily enough, I rather drive more mechs than ever before .
#IRpokemechwhale

[Roadbuster]

Gwahlur, on 12 June 2017 - 05:02 AM, said:

The problem with LRMs is really just with Polar Lurmlands, and the problem with Polar Lurmlands is LRMs.

Since the lurmlands are so open, you have all the LRMers voting for it, so you can be sure that 99% of the times you get that map, it'll be LRM hell.
On other maps LRMs can be avoided with varying degrees of success, making LRMers feel their lurms are weak. I would argue they're not weak though, as they do crowd control if used by someone who knows what they're doing.
On Polar Lurmlands, everyone else feel lurms are too strong, in part due to the layout of the map, and in part due to the amount of LRMers you will have in most/all Polar Lurmlands games.

Off topic, but here's what you do on Polar:
- stay in the valleys as much as you can to make it harder for the enemy to spot you
- if you have ECM, keep it close to the group to break lock if someone gets rained
- get AMS
- watch out for, and don't ignore flanking mechs!!!
- flank the enemy and focus the LRM boats
- close the gap and get to mid/close range
- shoot down UAVs!!!

If you still have problems, you made a mistake and can blame yourself for it.
If you ended up in team "potatoe", more luck next time.

Edited by Roadbuster, 12 June 2017 - 05:42 AM.

[Gwahlur]

Roadbuster, on 12 June 2017 - 05:23 AM, said:

There's just a few things I don't like about the ST.
In the armor tree you have to chose either "AMS Overload" or "Shock Absorbance". Usually that's no problem if that mech has AMS or JJ, but I hava a number of mechs which don't use either, but I have no chance but to "waste" a SP for something I don't want or need.

I'd say shock absorbance is (situationally) useful for all mechs.

Roadbuster, on 12 June 2017 - 05:30 AM, said:

Off topic, but here's what you do on Polar:
- stay in the valleys as much as you can to make it harder for the enemy to spot you
- if you have ECM, keep it close to the group to break lock if someone gets rained
- get AMS
- watch out for, and don't ignore flanking mechs
- flank the enemy and focus the LRM boats
- close the gap and get to mid/close range

If you still have problems, you made a mistake and can blame yourself for it.
If you ended up in team "potatoe", more luck next time.

Yeah, if the stars align right, you can have good games there as well.
In fact, I think Polar Lurmlands is a very good map for escort, and escort is a very good mode for the map.

[Burke IV]

LRMs seem very weak to me Nowhere near as good as they were. Infact i would say they are the most useless they ever been, even when you catch somebody out most of the time they can shrug it off and get back into cover. Some assults dont even seem to notice you shooting at them anymore and atlas? dont even bother cause thats all your ammo. AMS can completely shut you down and then you realise just how bad your little backup medium lasers are now. LRMs got shafted.

[Vellron2005]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.. LRMs and associated stuff is FINE.

Leave it as they are, especially until we get to the Civil War weapons..

They DO NOT need buffs. They DO NOT need Nerfs.

They are FINE.

[Burke IV]

No they arnt. Far from it. Infact i would say that ifyou want to throw LRMs these days you now need an assult mech to be able to get enough missiles flying. They are the weakest they have ever been and while teh fabled spam lord might not notice, the front line LRMer will. After all the moaning about not armour sharing and etc etc whos gonna defend that?

[LittleGrim]

Vellron2005, on 13 June 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

I've said it before, I'll say it again.. LRMs and associated stuff is FINE.

Leave it as they are, especially until we get to the Civil War weapons..

They DO NOT need buffs. They DO NOT need Nerfs.

They are FINE.

Just pay people for getting AMS score. Watch AMS flourish to the point that LRM's die out and people stop bringing AMS again. Everything else seems to be rewarded these days so why not shooting down incoming missiles?

[Excalibaard]

Acehilator, on 12 June 2017 - 04:55 AM, said:

Comparing before and after is useless. The new system is here to stay, and it won't see any kind of substantial overhaul in the foreseeable future. Deal with it or stop playing.

@DGTLDaemon: I have no idea why you are so hung up on this mobility/survival thing. All trees grant you access to features your mech could not have before (or at least not at the same time). And mobility is not the only tree in which you have to invest to get to or near the old baseline.

@Excalibaard: LRM nerf? Are you kidding me? If you cannot deal with LRMs with the currently available tools, you need to l2p. This is not an insult, just a statement of fact. If thousands of people around the world can do it, you can do it too.

LRMs are useless in comp play, 95% useless in group play, 90% useless in FW play, and viable in solo play. And they are fine this way. As was already said in this thread, buffing them to be viable in other game modes would make them gamebreaking OP in solo queue. So just leave them alone, with the energy rebalance and new tech coming PGI has enough on their plate regarding weapon systems.

Vellron2005, on 13 June 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

I've said it before, I'll say it again.. LRMs and associated stuff is FINE.

Leave it as they are, especially until we get to the Civil War weapons..

They DO NOT need buffs. They DO NOT need Nerfs.

They are FINE.

I don't intend for LRMs to be nerfed or buffed or even touched at this stage. As said in the original post. I just want to reduce the out-of-game impact on the viability of LRMs. That's just making the difference between '0' and 'all' radar derp or ECM nodes - and maybe the power of AMS - So that out-of-game factors have less effect on LRMs. This makes them more consistent (and therefore more viable and easy to tune in later patches) in their use, comparable to every other weapon in the game. Consistency makes them easier to learn how to deal with. If one game you have 2 kitfoxes on your team, and the next time you don't, there will be a difference, but the difference will be less like night and day.

Polar Highlands is a good map for LRMs, Tourmaline they just crash into crystals and River City you shouldn't bother. That's normal. The same way that Laser vomit does very well on Frozen City, but is crippled at Terra Therma. But other than matchmaker, There are no 'reflective armor' nodes to take against lasers, or 'reactive armor' against ballistics. LRMs are a weapon that can be reduced in effectiveness by the map, and then has 3 more node types that work against it as a weapon: AMS overload, ECM, Radar Derp. With full Radar Derp the node that helps them (Target Decay) even has objectively 0 effect instead of at least a little. This is what brings the most variability to the system -the prevalence of 100% radar derp did that already before the skill tree- and what should be changed. Not 'Nerfed', Not 'Buffed', CHANGED into values that are closer together, around their current average.

Edited by Excalibaard, 13 June 2017 - 04:48 AM.