228 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

W E N D I G O, on 30 June 2017 - 02:06 AM, said:

What you want is literally "I have an IS Mech with IS tech and when I loose a Mech component I want to keep the equipment active which was installed in it because reasons although Clan Mechs loose all that equipment that was installed in it." You are just isolating the weight value to make a stronger point. Along with those IS XL engines came a plethora of armor and structure quirks to compensate for this, additionally vastly superiority in the ability to focus damage, higher dps, higher skilltreenode-values etc etc..

"Because... those are kinda important stats for a 'Mech."

You ever got your torso blown out in a Clan Mech which has to rely on energy weapons? You can't even dissipate enough heat to constantly use one CER Large Laser anymore, plus your mobility is extremly hampered as well as your speed ("tested" in an Executioner).

For the percentages you might want to re-read the numbers. In MWO they don't save those values. You are just using them to sway general opinions imo. It's true there are differences, it's also true that Clans save more tonnage. But it's not as severe as you make it sound. You know, I looked them values up before making my initial response. Maybe you should do the same, but that wouldn't serve your argument as well I suppose.

Unlike you im not obviously biased (Clan loyalist tag, thinks Clan stuff should stay obviously superior. Hmmmm)

Its a simple fact that the C-XL is identical in every way to the LFE, currently, apart from tonnage. At a 300 rating the LFE is 4.5 tons heavier than the C-XL (see below, i said 'about 5 tons', and was working from memory, so sue me.). Therefore... the C-XL is better! Balance is, or should be, a thing. FFS.



The absolute FACT is that Clan mechs are currently better than IS ones, and i was hoping that some of this new gear would help with that, but apparently its basically ALL DOA, for both sides with the LFE being pretty much the only thing thats not worse than something that already exists. (ATM 180m min range, overly hot RACs, 12 dmg HPPCs LOL fail)

Im NOT biased, i want actual balance. See merc tag. I currently play Clan way more, because they are far better, epecially with PPCs which are my favourite weapons. Was hoping HPPCs might make IS dual PPC mechs viable.. but nope.

[Zergling]

Heavy Gauss time!

Starting with a comparison of the regular iGauss vs Heavy Gauss:
Gauss = 15 damage, 5.00 cooldown, 0.75 charge time, 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 660 meter optimal range
Heavy Gauss = 25 damage, 6.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge time, 3.33 DPS, 0.185 DPS/ton, 180 meter optimal range

So technically, the Heavy Gauss is more powerful than regular Gauss up to 180 meters; it is even more tonnage efficient.

However, with range the damage drops significantly:
300 meters = 20 damage, 2.67 DPS, 0.148 DPS/ton.
432 meters = 15 damgae, 2.00 DPS, 0.111 DPS/ton.
558 meters = 10 damage, 1.33 DPS, 0.074 DPS/ton
660 meters = 5.95 damage, 0.79 DPS, 0.044 DPS/ton

At just 300 meters range, it is barely doing more DPS than the regular Gauss, and it's DPS/ton is noticably worse. Then by 432 meters range, the damage has dropped to regular Gauss level, and it is totally inferior.

Basically, with its current stats, the Heavy Gauss is not a competitor to the regular Gauss; it simply doesn't have the ranged performance.
Instead, the Heavy Gauss is a close range weapon, better compared to the AC20.


AC20 vs Heavy Gauss:
AC20 = 20 damage, 4.00 cooldown, 5.00 DPS, 0.357 DPS/ton, 3.33 damage/heat, 270 meter optimal range
Heavy Gauss at 180 meters = 25 damage, 6.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge time, 3.33 DPS, 0.185 DPS/ton, 12.50 damage/heat
Heavy Gauss at 300 meters = 20 damage, 6.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge up, 2.67 DPS, 0.148 DPS/ton, 10.00 damage/heat

The Heavy Gauss ends up much better in damage/heat ratio, but that's about it. It does become a bit more effective when the range drops further, but it is probably fair to say it is outclassed in most respects by the AC20.


There are two ways to improve the Heavy Gauss; the first is to retain its short effective range due to damage drop-off, which means buffing it relative to the AC20.
The problem is the poor DPS of the Heavy Gauss; to improve that means either increasing damage or reducing cooldown. Increased damage isn't an option, because 25 is already quite high, so the only option is to reduce cooldown.

Reducing the Heavy Gauss cooldown from 6.5 to 5.0 seconds results in the following comparison versus the AC20:
AC20 = 20 damage, 4.00 cooldown, 5.00 DPS, 0.357 DPS/ton, 3.33 damage/heat
Heavy Gauss at 180 meters = 25 damage, 5.00 cooldown, 1.00 charge time, 4.17 DPS, 0.231 DPS/ton, 12.50 damage/heat
Heavy Gauss at 300 meters = 20 damage, 5.00 cooldown, 1.00 charge up, 3.33 DPS, 0.185 DPS/ton, 10.00 damage/heat

The Heavy Gauss still doesn't compare that favourably to the AC20; further buffs are needed.


Reducing the cooldown further to 4.5 seconds results in the following comparison versus the AC20:
AC20 = 20 damage, 4.00 cooldown, 5.00 DPS, 0.357 DPS/ton, 3.33 damage/heat
Heavy Gauss at 180 meters = 25 damage, 4.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge time, 4.55 DPS, 0.253 DPS/ton, 12.50 damage/heat
Heavy Gauss at 300 meters = 20 damage, 4.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge up, 3.64 DPS, 0.202 DPS/ton, 10.00 damage/heat

It still ends up with worse DPS than the AC20, but hopefully the far superior damage/heat figures make the Heavy Gauss competitive.

Such a much faster firing Heavy Gauss would require more ammo per ton of ammo though; the current 5 shots is only 100/125 damage at 180/300 meters, it would likely have to be increased to at least 7 shots per ton.


However, I doubt PGI would be keen on having the Heavy Gauss firing faster than the regular Gauss, so it brings to the second way to improve the Heavy Gauss; forget about making it a short ranged weapon with severe damage drop off like in TT Battletech.
To do that, improve its optimal range to 600 and maximum range to 1200. Then reduce the max damage from 25 to 22.

In this case, its direct competitor would be the regular Gauss, for this comparison:
Gauss = 15 damage, 5.00 cooldown, 0.75 charge time, 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 660 meter optimal range
Heavy Gauss = 22 damage, 6.50 cooldown, 1.00 charge time, 2.93 DPS, 0.163 DPS/ton, 600 meter optimal range

The Heavy Gauss ends up just being a 'bigger Gauss' with this balancing, but that isn't a bad thing. It would have higher DPS than the regular Gauss, but would have an inferior DPS/ton ratio, which is to be expected with a larger weapon that fills a similar role.


If 22 damage seems a bit high, then 20 damage is possible too, but requires a drop in cooldown to to prevent DPS from being barely above that of the regular Gauss.

Here is what the comparison looks like with Heavy Gauss doing 20 damage, and cooldown reduced from 6.5 to 5.75 seconds:
Gauss = 15 damage, 5.00 cooldown, 0.75 charge time, 2.61 DPS, 0.174 DPS/ton, 660 meter optimal range
Heavy Gauss = 20 damage, 5.75 cooldown, 1.00 charge time, 2.96 DPS, 0.165 DPS/ton, 600 meter optimal range


Lastly, increasing the optimal range of the Heavy Gauss to make it compete with the regular Gauss would require too further buffs; ammo/ton would need to be increased to at least 7, and velocity from its current 1000 m/s to at least 1500 m/s, maybe even 1750 m/s (regular Gauss has 2000 m/s velocity, in comparison).


So... thoughts? Which way to balance the Heavy Gauss seems like the best?

I'm kinda leaning towards 20 damage with 600 meters optimal range myself, but I'm interested in what others have to say.

Edited by Zergling, 30 June 2017 - 03:04 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

W E N D I G O, on 30 June 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

Yeah, thanks to Fantastic Tuesday you should understand now that 50% and 25% are not the truth as you made it up previously. Just divide the numbers by two and respectively four and then check your results against the XL values.

Did you ever play TT? Mechs include gyros and some other bits and pieces which have a set weight. In MWO for simplicity, PGI have rolled the weights of those items into the engine weight.

I.e. the weights of the ENGINE in the STD, LFE and XL are 100%, 75% and 50% respectively, but there is a flat value for the extra stuff which is the same for every mech and build and is added to this value.

(also for engines rated below 250 things change a bit, in MWO they have subtracted tons for the heatsinks you have to mount, where in TT those heatsinks were weight free. Doesnt make any difference in the end, they just did it to avoid having to code special zero weight heatsinks)

The percentages dont actually matter anyway. The fact is that the LFE is significantly heavier than the C-XL and as such should not have penalties that are as steep. Before you start going on about 5% better laser duration ST nodes and like 2% better cooldown (lol), consider the half size endo, the 2 slot DHS, the half size, 50% better ferro, and the C-ERPPC compared to any IS PPC (and yeah, omni build restrictions were once upon a time a decent counter to that. But Kodiak, MAD-IIC, MCII, HBK-IIC, etc exist now)

[Oberost]

Widowmaker1981, on 30 June 2017 - 02:24 AM, said:

W E N D I G O, on 30 June 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

Yeah, thanks to Fantastic Tuesday you should understand now that 50% and 25% are not the truth as you made it up previously. Just divide the numbers by two and respectively four and then check your results against the XL values.

Deduct from the numbers on that table the weight from the cockpit (3 tons) and from the gyro (engine rating/100 rounded up) and you'll find that the XL engine weights 50% of the STD and the LFE weights 75% of the STD. The weight of the cockpit and gyro was separated from the engine weight in CBT and therefore it has nothing to do with how much the engine weights (apart of the engine rating determining the weight of the gyro, which is the same in an XL, LFE or STD engine...).

So yes, the XL is half and the LFE is a quarter of the STD engine weight...

Edited by Oberost, 30 June 2017 - 03:42 AM.

[Genesis23]

W E N D I G O, on 30 June 2017 - 01:17 AM, said:

And the LFE is working as intended, loosing sidetorso means you loose a part of your engine, so less speed and less heat dissipation. Also your percentage of weight savings are not correct, XL engines don't save 50% weight, be it Clan or IS variant. Same for the assumed flat 25% for LFEs.

youre wrong. XL allways save 50% of the ENGINE WEIGHT, gyro ect. not included.

Edited by Genesis23, 30 June 2017 - 04:37 AM.

[Genesis23]

W E N D I G O, on 30 June 2017 - 02:06 AM, said:

You ever got your torso blown out in a Clan Mech which has to rely on energy weapons? You can't even dissipate enough heat to constantly use one CER Large Laser anymore, plus your mobility is extremly hampered as well as your speed ("tested" in an Executioner).

For the percentages you might want to re-read the numbers. In MWO they don't save those values. You are just using them to sway general opinions imo. It's true there are differences, it's also true that Clans save more tonnage. But it's not as severe as you make it sound. You know, I looked them values up before making my initial response. Maybe you should do the same, but that wouldn't serve your argument as well I suppose.

you enjoyed months of no penalty what so ever and then a small penalty before the more reasonable amount and now you are afraid of a quite inferior version of your cXL? oh come on, you cant possibly be serious.

clans save more tonnage and have lighter, smaller equipment and this is as severe as he made it sound. there is just no arguing about that.

Edited by Genesis23, 30 June 2017 - 04:38 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

Some thoughts about

Rotary ACs

I suppose it is intended as a facetime/supression weapon. However, it fails at it for 2 reasons:
1. too hot
2. the damage output should be considerable because it has no notworthy alpha and even needs a spin up plus a long facetime. Too bad it doesn't have it.

[Kael Posavatz]

Genesis23, on 30 June 2017 - 04:27 AM, said:

you enjoyed months of no penalty what so ever and then a small penalty before the more reasonable amount and now you are afraid of a quite inferior version of your cXL? oh come on, you cant possibly be serious.

clans save more tonnage and have lighter, smaller equipment and this is as severe as he made it sound. there is just no arguing about that.

I did not particularly enjoy, no. Poor game design and balance is poor game design and balance whether it works in my favor or not.

What I really did not enjoy was that part where it took 30 months to get that balance. I would have much rather have had a single massive nerf with some fine-tune tweaking. (In the vernacular, this is called 'pulling off the Band-Aid in one go').

And then they went and did the same thing going the other way. To use your own argument, I suppose you really enjoyed the ballistic-quirked Dragons/Wolverines, the ppc-toting Thunderbolts, the laser-vomit stalkers, and all the rest? I know that I did not. Again, poor game design and balance is poor game design and balance whether it works against me or not.

I will say this, with these changes it feels like PGI is at least trying to start with a workable balance.

[Grayson Sortek]

NOTE TO DEVS

I don't know if this has already been reported (I don't want to read through 10 pages of material to find out), but I noticed something odd with the RACs.

I can equip 2xRAC5s or 2xRAC2s and be fine with heat on say something like a Rifleman. Sure the 2s are much better about it, but that's not the point. Now, on the exact same 'Mech I tested a 1RAC5+1RAC2 combination and fired them at the same time... Holy Shazbot Batman, I'll overheat so quickly that I shutdown within 1.0-1.5 seconds. If anything a 1xRAC5/1xRAC2 combo should produce LESS heat than 2xRAC5s. I think this is a glitch with how it's calculating the combined heat.

Also, I'm kind of surprised that the MRMs all go to the original position of the trigger/click. Is it just not possible with the engine to let us spread those things?

Otherwise, I'm very excited to see the new tech as it will revive some of those 'Mechs that I haven't gone near in quite some time.

[AnHell86]

I had an awesome time with the PTS. Thanks for releasing it close to the weekend.

2x Heavy Gauss and 2x Flamers are a beauty. I don't think they should be compared to AC20s. Remember that AC20s have ghost heat (a pretty brutal one) while Gauss weapons don't. A 50 point alpha with no ghost heat is super scary. These weapons have a high risk (180 meters, explode, critted easily, heavy, slot hungry, etc) and high reward. Therefore, I think HGauss is good as is.

RAC5s are very hot in pairs and they blind the opponent's vision. These weapons can be paired with other ballistics for synergy; maybe ACs which run cooler and don't jam.

The stealth armor is cool, and it even makes you invisible to your teammates. I accidentally shot a friendly and I felt so bad LOL (40 alpha to his torso). These stealthy mechs can be sent for special ninja missions. Hahaha

LFEs are awesome. Also the light ferro is welcome. Many more builds are now available. IS will have more durable mechs.

The Snub PPCs are deadly when paired with cold ballistics. I love shotgun builds with SPPCs and LBXs. Or SPPCs with SRMs. There's a lot to tinker with.

MRMs are not my cup of coffee. I tried to boat them with my Cyclops 10-Q (120 damage with 4xMRM30s) but I really didn't feel they were dependable. I always ended with a lot of damage done but it was all spread, and thus, inneficient. If the enemy is too fast or too small, don't even bother firing at the optimal range or even at 320~350 meters. The long traveling time and spread (it's really spread out!) make these weapons very undependable. I can't even imagine the uselessness in urban areas. I think it's better to close in and wreck stuff with SRMs.

TL:DR Heavy Gauss and Snub PPCs Gud, MRMs bad. LOL read the whole text, don't be lazy.

Edit: Typos

Edited by AnHell86, 30 June 2017 - 11:17 PM.

[Stephen Grendal]

Why does the Rac 5 only get 4 extra rounds for the SP's where an AC 5 get 6, and the RAC 5 has 130 rounds but the AC 5 has 30 ???!!?!?!?!??

[Sri Syadasti]

I would just like to add to the salt about the minimum range of the atm's. Given everything the IS is receiving a changing the minimum range would help.

[The Pug Commander]

Widowmaker1981, on 30 June 2017 - 01:25 AM, said:

Based on those paper stats... lol.

no change to slots for LBX20 = 100% useless. No one will ever mount one unless they are a moron.

Absurd burn times for heavy lasers. No one in their right minds is going to use those either. 1.7s for the HLL, with a DPH under 1? LOL.

WTF is that HPPC damage? Its 10 fricking tons and 4 fracking slots. No one except an idiot will use it, when you can stack LPPCs for higher damage and less tonnage, or run a standard PPC at the same range with almost the same damage but for 3 tons lighter, 1 slot smaller and much better DPH. Idiots, make it 15 damage

Stealth armour is completely useless too unless it blocks your thermal signature (specifically including at range on hot maps). I very much doubt it does, but that needs testing.

RLs might be OK for mechs with 3 or 4 missile hardpoints along with primary energy ports as a backup splat.

RACs look OK. Need to test that as spin up times are pretty important and not specified.

ATMs look OK. pretty much what i was expecting, though i think ammo per ton is on the low side. Thats only the same dmg/ton as the SRMs at point blank range, at longer ranges dmg/ton will be terrible in comparison.

No beam range boost on IS TCs? WTF...

LFEs ... ST loss penalties? they are not specified. If none, maybe PGI did something right....

lol have you actually tested any of these builds? Me and my unit have been 1v1 on the test server. Some of what you said is inaccurate. Dual lb20s, dual snub nose ppc, dual hmg is insane on a mauler. UAC 10 and 20s is like God mode lol. ATMS are devastating if you play them right. RL are devastating on some builds. LIKE 4 20s on a cyclops

Edited by The Pug Commander, 30 June 2017 - 11:19 AM.

[Cmdr Killian]

I was Excited for the ATM. the minimum range makes it pointless though. I'd suggest taking the minimum range to 90 meters, to be half way between srm and lrm.

Long Burn time on heavy lasers make them useless.

MRM's , Make their spread about 30% smaller, and since they have NO tracking capability at ALL, make them travel faster?
or,reduce their weight.

Heavy ppc is god awful. More damage needed to make it worth its tonnage.

autocannon Jam rates: I don't know if you thought of this PGI,But a weapon that jams that often is pointless. I would suggest instead of a flat jam rate percentage chance, make it a sliding scale based on the mech's heat when firing. 0% chance to jam if none to low heat, half of the current jam chance at medium heat, and current jam chance only during high heat.

[The Boneshaman]

I haven't seen anyone talk about.

Rocket Launchers.... why? they are like "well I have .5,1,1.5 tons I don't know what to do with but I have a missile slot open so why not." just remove them PGI. they are a waste of data replace them with http://www.sarna.net...derbolt_Missile.

is it bugged or is this working as planed. I used 2 RAC-2 no problem 2 RAC-5 heat went up steadily. 1 RAC-2 +1 RAC-5. heat spike was OMFG.
I don't like the ATMs min. rang 90m would be best like everyone is saying. I would maybe accept 100m just to be different.
you should also implement Hot load LRMs. this was covered in the http://www.sarna.net...ctical_Handbook. it would drop LRMs minimum rang at a cost of the ammo exploding if critically hit while loaded.

Edited by The Boneshaman, 30 June 2017 - 12:12 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

is it bugged or is this working as planed. I used 2 RAC-2 no problem 2 RAC-5 heat went up steadily. 1 RAC-2 +1 RAC-5. heat spike was OMFG.

It's a bug with GH in general. They're setting off each other's ghost heat penalties constantly.

[FallingAce]

Widowmaker1981, on 30 June 2017 - 02:24 AM, said:

The absolute FACT is that Clan mechs are currently better than IS ones

W E N D I G O, on 30 June 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

I bet there are "IS loyalists" out there which can prove you wrong about this generalization, be it in the field or here on the forums.

The balance overlord states that clan mechs are 8% better than I.S. mechs

From the town hall redit notes link

Q: Recently posted IS/Clan balance was closer than ever before. You said 8%. How do you internalize your data to come up with such a comparison?

Chris: We pull data from servers. I can see how good mechs are performing across multiple different balance points. We can't get into specifics.

Now why would a I.S. loyalist dispute this "generalization"

Edited by FallingAce, 30 June 2017 - 12:31 PM.

[Weeny Machine]

Cmdr Killian, on 30 June 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

I was Excited for the ATM. the minimum range makes it pointless though. I'd suggest taking the minimum range to 90 meters, to be half way between srm and lrm.

Long Burn time on heavy lasers make them useless.

MRM's , Make their spread about 30% smaller, and since they have NO tracking capability at ALL, make them travel faster?
or,reduce their weight.

Heavy ppc is god awful. More damage needed to make it worth its tonnage.

autocannon Jam rates: I don't know if you thought of this PGI,But a weapon that jams that often is pointless. I would suggest instead of a flat jam rate percentage chance, make it a sliding scale based on the mech's heat when firing. 0% chance to jam if none to low heat, half of the current jam chance at medium heat, and current jam chance only during high heat.

Heavy lasers are pretty neat. They are just not useful on all mechs. On a poking ACH they are fantastic imo

MRMs and rotaries on the other hand...oh my...the prior one is broken and the other one hits like a wet noodle

[Thorsten Schuetz]

Does anybody knows what the patch today fixed? So far I have seen:
- Fixed ammo for IS UAC/20 (tripled)
- Fixed ammo for IS UAC/10 (doubled)

[FallingAce]

Chris Lowrey live on twitch
https://www.twitch.tv/ngngtv