211 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

NlGHTBlRD, on 20 June 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

C-SPL was over performing, but nerfing this much damage without making people angry takes common sense. For example, you nerf the damage by 33% from 6 to 4, but you reduce the heat to 2 (because they stated Pulse lasers have better DPH than regular lasers, and also this is the original DPH), you reduce the cooldown by 33% to maintain the DPS of 2, and you reduce the duration by 33%. Then and only then, can they claim they're changing this to a DPS weapon.

Right now, C-SPLs have lower DPS (taking into consideration more weight=fewer heatsinks), lower range, lower alpha damage, and twice the weight of ERSLs. An idiotic move that makes many light mechs instantly useless. (P.S. coulda done the same to IS SLS)

The issue is that Russ/Paul had INCREASED the cSPL to 6dmg from the previous 4.4dmg, and then from 3.4dmg prior to that, with BT being a baseline of 3dmg. Paul/Russ was not looking in future when they made those changes. So P/R doubled the baseline damage. I am not aware of other weapons that saw that type of increase.

cSPL dmg/heat

Lore: 3 dmg / 2 heat

MWO June 2014: initially 3.4 dmg / 3.4 heat
MWO July 2014: increased to 4.4 dmg / 3.4 heat
MWO Nov 2014: Increased to 6.0 dmg / 3.0 heat
MWO June 2017: Decrease to 4.0 dmg / 2.7 heat

MWO Dec 2014: Release of Community Warfare aka Faction Play

Pulse Lasers had a -2 gunnery hit modifier. Heavy Lasers had a +1 gunnery hit modifier.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 21 June 2017 - 04:06 PM.

[50 50]

MrLT912, on 19 June 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

HEY Chris and Russ perhaps yall might wanna do that town hall meeting wearing Bright Yellow rain suits...you know the ones they wear on Deadliest catch or like on that Morton salt can we all got in our pantries. Get ready for the back handed QQ I think yall doing a good... i dig the new skill tree and all that....my beef is with yall and this small .00001 balance stuff hey if ya gonna adjust adjust ima almost sure that .o1 reduction doesn't mean a dam thing a regular QP and pardon my French but err frack your so called nerfing of that Night Gyr...cant nerf skill and positioning my friends....what we need is that DAM "LFE" (light fusion engine) like a couple years ago. Night Gyrs are only good because they can torso check and IS mech with its Frackin XL engine. well all know this but that QQ crowd is all over the place with that BS. I say frack sticking to that lore crap and lets bring some real balance so we can have some fun up in this joint...them Lore Foolies can play that Battletch crap when it comes out...*steps down from milk crate

Only Mr T can be Mr T.
This was terrible to try and read.
Never
post
again

[Space Monster]

On abandoning the Assault mode fixes in favour of Incursion:

One of the major issues plaguing Assault is that two teams can effectively rotate in such way as to not actually meet and then just cap out. Or a battle starts, people are having fun with what is the essence of Battletch/Mechwarrior - actual combat in mechs! - and then suddenly the round ends because one team happened to have a fast light that went to cap.

Aside from anything else, both of these outcomes are just totally un-fun.

Incursion has exactly the same problem - with the added bonus that some mechs might spend actual minutes out of the fighting, doing boring laps to power up base elements that are not even relevant for the fight unfolding somewhere closer to the middle of the map.

So effectively an Assault fix was abandoned in favour of... not only repeating one of the major issues, but compounding it.

The two questions I have from this are -

So... when are we actually going to get an Assault fix?

Is Incursion going to be redesigned, in light of the above (and/or other issues)?

[Genesis23]

50 50, on 20 June 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

Only Mr T can be Mr T.
This was terrible to try and read.
Never
post
again

applause to you for even trying. i stoped after the first 3 sentences.

[NocturnalBeast]

Topa101, on 20 June 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

I would love to see mech physics in the game allow for falling over and getting knocked over and getting back up animations. . like when a light mech gets hit with a ac 20 in the legs - it should trip and fall.

There were knockdowns in closed beta, but there was a bug with the physics that caused Dragons to hit with the mass of a 100 ton mech. Unfortunately the programmer who was working on all that stuff, found another job and PGI removed it from the game and put it on the back-burner. And yes, I absolutely hate that a light mech can hide between the legs of an assault and kill while the assault can not move it's arms down far enough to hit it and it is not knocked down, or even knocked back into firing range. Some realistic physics would be nice also, like actually being slowed down when running through water that is as deep as your cockpit (mechs are not submarines).

Edited by Ed Steele, 20 June 2017 - 10:57 PM.

[Aramuside]

space monster, on 20 June 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

On abandoning the Assault mode fixes in favour of Incursion: One of the major issues plaguing Assault is that two teams can effectively rotate in such way as to not actually meet and then just cap out. Or a battle starts, people are having fun with what is the essence of Battletch/Mechwarrior - actual combat in mechs! - and then suddenly the round ends because one team happened to have a fast light that went to cap. Aside from anything else, both of these outcomes are just totally un-fun. Incursion has exactly the same problem - with the added bonus that some mechs might spend actual minutes out of the fighting, doing boring laps to power up base elements that are not even relevant for the fight unfolding somewhere closer to the middle of the map. So effectively an Assault fix was abandoned in favour of... not only repeating one of the major issues, but compounding it. The two questions I have from this are - So... when are we actually going to get an Assault fix? Is Incursion going to be redesigned, in light of the above (and/or other issues)?

One light mech will take a LONG time to cap out a base believe me I've tried it.

[Nightbird]

Tarl Cabot, on 20 June 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

The issue is that Russ/Paul had INCREASED the cSPL to 6dmg from the previous 4.4dmg, and then from 3.4dmg prior to that, with BT being a baseline of 3dmg. Paul/Russ was not looking in future when they made those changes. So P/R doubled the baseline damage. I am not aware of other weapons that saw that type of increase.

cSPL dmg/heat

Lore: 3 dmg / 2 heat

MWO June 2014: initially 3.4 dmg / 3.4 heat
MWO July 2014: increased to 4.4 dmg / 3.4 heat
MWO Nov 2014: Increased to 6.0 dmg / 3.0 heat
MWO June 2017: Decrease to 4.4 dmg / 2.7 heat

MWO Dec 2014: Release of Community Warfare aka Faction Play

Pulse Lasers had a -2 gunnery hit modifier. Heavy Lasers had a +1 gunnery hit modifier.

And I would fine with 3 damage 2 heat, if they preserved the DPS and made duration extremely short. The problem is PGI stated pulse lasers will be balanced as having superior DPS and DPH, and then made them have worse DPS/ton and DPH. It shows a complete disconnect between their stated goals and the numbers they picked.

[Nightbird]

Consider these clan small laser stats and tell me if they have well defined roles:

C-ERSL: 200m range, 5 damage, 3 heat, 1s duration, 3s cooldown, 1.25 dps

C-SPL: 170m range, 3 damage, 2 heat, 0.1s duration, 1.4s cooldown, 2 dps, crit chance+

C-HSL: 100m range, 6 damage, 3 heat, 1.5s duration, 3s cooldown, 1.33 dps

Can you get close? No, then ERSL or SPL. Yes, then HSL.

Want to be effective against lights? Yes, then SPL. No, the ERSL or HSL.

[STEF_]

Monkey Lover, on 19 June 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

Russ Bullock‏ @russ_bullock May 5
Replying to @Outlaw9012

MW5 updates going to come through major media/trade shows - diff approach then MWO -although MWO was similar up til open beta

So the question should be:"when will your marketing will be so kind (or smart) to give MW5 informations to major media/trade show?".....

[High Xoltage]

Now that lasers have been "Balanced", will their heat scale be adjusted?
Right now, clan ER-Large Lasers and Large Pulse Lasers are "Linked Large Lasers" at 2 (7.2 heat penalty) while IS ER-Large Lasers, Large Lasers, and Large Pulse Lasers are Linked at 3 (0 heat penalty).

Meanwhile, Clan ER-Medium Lasers and Medium Pulse Lasers are "Linked Medium Lasers" while IS Mediums and Medium Pulses aren't linked at all.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...eapon_heatscale

Personally, my favorite weapon in game is the IS Large, not ER, because I can chain 3 of them and they are relatively heat efficient and have a great recycle time.

I think this is a good balance against the Clan ER-Large Laser, which is more effective per shot, but has longer recycle, longer duration, and more heat, making it MUCH less efficient.

Same could be said for PPC's

Also, IS can mix Medium Lasers and Medium Pulse Lasers for insane alphas (if I understand the chart correctly) while clan cannot.

So "balance" adjustments AND heat scale are going MASSIVELY counter clan.

I am in the camp, "I want Clan and IS weapons to have distinctly different characters" and I know this makes your work hard. However, I think heat scale is now massively in favor of IS and as much as people complain about "Clan Laservom", nothing compares to Thunderbolt Laservom.

Now, I am not saying that there should be parity. If heat scale remains 2 for clan and 3 for IS, that's fine. I am just asking if the heat penalties should be reduced. Maybe 7.2 for CERLL is a bit too steep, now.

[PraetorGix]

This is a question I'd like answered and will never get addressed: PGI, when will you increase damage of clan SPL to 5, or remove ghost heat penalty from them? Will you actually fix the problem you created by killing the weapon or will you leave it as it is now out of a sense of pride and to avoid acknowledging your faults?

[PraetorGix]

Bud Crue, on 20 June 2017 - 02:43 AM, said:

More specifically, can you give us some of the math, data, statistical principles, etc. that you are relying on, which suggests to you that, for example, the 2 point reduction to the CSPL damage reduction -within the confines of the other changes of course- is more appropriate than say a 1.5 points, or 1 point, or .75 points etc.? That's just an example. Same question could apply to any of the changes. I don't care about the CSPL in particular. Rather, I am simply trying to understand how you approach these changes, and why you choose the incremental/proportional changes that you end up with and why/how is it that you have confidence in their presumed result.

LOL you presume they actually do all that? Lemme tell you how it goes, Paul comes, says "2 points less because I'm your balance overlord" and that's that. I mean, do you really think there is a rational explanation as of why an IS large pulse burns the same time as a Clan small pulse?

[grendeldog]

When are you going to remove the quick play maps from FP?

I used to play FP in a dedicated fashion quite often. But now I never see actual FP maps, siege mode maps or whatever. I ONLY see the quick play maps.

If I wanted quick play maps I would just use the solo or group queue! The quick play maps aren't DESIGNED for respawns. There was enough distance in the actual FP specific maps that if you got taken out the enemy had to regroup and come in another wave. In the quick play maps any time an enemy dies they respawns and get back into the fight so fast that you can't take down waves because it's just a continuous deathball that camps your spawn.

These quick play maps have ruined FP for me. Use quick play maps for scouting! That's the whole purpose of the scouting mode! Leave the quick play maps out of the invasion mode - please!

[MechaBattler]

Will we be seeing a PTS for the new tech before it's full release? Given how many bugs were discovered during the PTS of the skill tree and the things that need to be hot fixed from the recent patch. It might be prudent to throw it on the PTS. What? No, this isn't my shameless attempt at seeing new tech ahead of schedule. >_>

Edited by MechaBattler, 21 June 2017 - 10:49 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

grendeldog, on 21 June 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

When are you going to remove the quick play maps from FP?

I used to play FP in a dedicated fashion quite often. But now I never see actual FP maps, siege mode maps or whatever. I ONLY see the quick play maps.

Unfortunately, the squeaky wheels that wanted QP maps to be in FP were louder than the ones (like you) who do not.

MechaBattler, on 21 June 2017 - 10:48 PM, said:

Will we be seeing a PTS for the new tech before it's full release? Given how many bugs were discovered during the PTS of the skill tree and the things that need to be hot fixed from the recent patch. It might be prudent to throw on it on the PTS. What? No, this isn't my shameless attempt at seeing new tech ahead of schedule. >_>

We already know that new Clan tech will be punitively hot and do less damage than in TT and IS stuff will be as good, but slightly heavier and take up slightly more space than the existing Clan stuff.

[MechaBattler]

Ed Steele, on 21 June 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

Unfortunately, the squeaky wheels that wanted QP maps to be in FP were louder than the ones (like you) who do not.



We already know that new Clan tech will be punitively hot and do less damage than in TT and IS stuff will be as good, but slightly heavier and take up slightly more space than the existing Clan stuff.

A lot of the stuff sounds good on paper. MRMs for instance could be no better than LRMs. The LBX line up being bigger provides no real reason to take it over the standard ACs. UAC20s will probably have as long a jam chance as the Clan version, which is roundly regarded as bad. LPPC would need a ghost heat of 4 to at least deal as much damage as current PPCs under ghost heat. It could all be horrible. They could even ruin RACs if they had a mind to.

But most importantly. I really wanna try them out! >: O

[Guardian2000]

My question barely relates to balance in that we have the IS version of a mech. Will we perhaps soon, soonish, next year maybe see the Locust IIC now that civil war has added the tech used by a majority of the Locust IIC variants? I feel like the clans need a super light scrappy mech to fight on par with the Locust. Please?!?

If this question doesn't work for NGNGtv feel free to change its scope to a more broad hint asking about mechs behind the civil war tech update.

[Cy Mitchell]

Question for Chris, Paul or Russ: UAC jam chances were increased last fall along with longer cooldowns for Clan due to the dominanace of Clan Mechs like the KDK-3 or Night Gyr which could boat 4 UACs and dominate. The collateral damage in these changes were Clan Mechs which could carry only one or two UACs and are placed at a severe disadvantage when one or both of their ballistic weapons jam. IS Mechs were affected too but many of them have large jam reduction quirks that most Clan Mechs do not have. The Skill Tree node for Jam Reduction does almost nothing to improve this.

I have conducted test where one or both of my two UAC5s were jammed 27% of the time while firing off 4 tons of ammo. After the ST it dropped to 25.8% in the one test I did. This is firing off 4 tons of ammo with constant double taps. AS a result, of the high jam chances, I have stopped double tapping unless I am in cover or going for a kill shot. I have also gravitated to using more pure laser builds. I know most others have switched to Gauss/erPPC wherever possible.

Are there any plans to address this with quirks for Mechs that can only carry something like one or two UAC5s or 10s? Or a change that increases jam chances on Mechs that boat UACs while lowering jams for Mechs with one or two?

Thanks.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Since the skill tree I've felt that weapons like the SRM6 have suffered more from the loss of fast fire + cool down module. Something that the spread/high explosives don't really make up for. My SRM6 brawlers feel significantly neutered when in combat, the next missile volley seems to take forever. Has there been any discussion internally about weapons, like the SRM6, that have longer cool downs, needing adjustment after the skill tree? While all weapons were affected equally, I don't think the effect was equal. The nature of how some weapons are used are impacted more by the increased cool down than others, and 10% of an SRM6 cool down is much more than something like SPL's, some of it's primary competition, and much more devastating to how the weapon is used because of factors like spread, lead time, face time, etc.




With the equipment health changes and introduction of the survivablity tree, I find that in many matches I am alive with stripped torsos, but all my weapons and equipment have been destroyed, or some one sneezes on me and it causes an ammo explosion. Before the equipment health change, it seemed like you'd occasionally lose a weapon, but more often you would lose the entire component. I understand what they were going for (more granular effect of damage, more variety of events, etc...), but it seems that weapons, especially large ones, are destroyed very quickly, and it is devastating to lose a large weapon. The system favors having lots of small weapons, since the overkill damage from a piece of equipment doesn't spill over into another weapon. Perhaps structure skills should also increase equipment health? Could equipment health be overtuned? Should overkill damage spread into other pieces of equipment balance the liability of taking fewer large weapons verses taking lots of small weapons?



Under the new skill tree, mastering 'Mech's takes a fair bit more time than it use to (30-40%+ longer to master 3 'Mech's over the old system). When new 'Mechs come out, the leader boards are always that very weekend. Many players don't have the banked GSP or GXP to instantly master new 'Mechs. Would it be worthwhile to consider waiting a week or so to start the leader boards for new 'Mechs?

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 22 June 2017 - 11:55 AM.

[Anatidaephobia]

Won't be able to make it to the Town hall itself, but here's my questions :


1. How many Light and Heavy gauss will be able to fired at the same time? Are there plans to adjust these values or will it remain 2?

2. Atlas, Timberwolf, ... Accel/Decel and Twist Speed changes; are these on the table?

3. Domination point on Frozen City and Crimson Straight; are these up for review still?

4. If skill tree aspects are changed do we get a full refund for the tree? How will this work?

5. Has the MRM mechanics been decided? Stream? Burst? Ranges?

6. Will there be adjustments to the IS LB20X so it can be placed on more mechs, considering the massive amount of required slots in tabletop?

7. Will we ever see Crit-splitting or anything of the sort?

8. What was the motivation behind the removal of 30 Days premium time from Standard packs?

9. Since we no longer have the rule of 3, could we see a move to more A-la-carte mech selling instead of packs? Especially considering the cbill cost for skill points.



o7

Edited by Anatidaephobia, 22 June 2017 - 12:27 PM.