197 replies to this topic

[MadRover]

Just stop nerfing everything on a freakin whim. Seriously! CONTROL YOURSELVES WITH THE NERF BAT. Got it all in caps so you folks in PGI can read it.

[YUyahoo]

Kamikaze Viking, on 16 October 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

This is exactly it. The risk reward trade off between range and DPS.

But also the difference in skills. Eg at lower tiers the brawl and mid range is much stronger. At high tier players are much better at putting out accurate damage at extreme range to hurt/kill the brawlers before they can close range, which doesn't happen in low tier.

Medium lasers not the problem its the c-ERML max range that you added back recently. So maybe pull that back a little bit (less than half of the buff you gave it) Each swing of the pendulum should be smaller than the previous one.

But please Stop looking at the top performers and nerfing them. Please look at the Underperforming or never used at all weapons and bring them UP to make them a viable choice.

re: GHR - 3 nerfs in a row for that chassis, yet its really only good in one specific role ERLL overwatch, and as we saw in WC its hardly used now compared to the summoner. IS needs to keep at least 1 good JJ capable heavy.

What you describe is one of the biggest issues with PGI's method of balancing this game. There is too much "top down" balancing and almost no "bottom up" balancing. Every time the "top" gets reduced to the "middle or below" it creates a new "top" which then also gets lowered to "middle or below"...and some point PGI has to look at the "lower than middles" and bring them inline with the "top" before everything gets reduced to "atari 2600" levels. Numbers on paper might demonstrate that ML/ERML/CML are "overperforming", but playing the game they sure don't "feel" that way...much like the Grasshoopers don't "feel" like "overperformers" specially compared to the assassin (which somehow doesn't get any nerfs)...I guess that is the difference between playing a game and balancing it based on "metrics".

[El Bandito]

Paul Inouye, on 16 October 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

[color=orange]The Grasshopper quirk changes...[/color]

The changes to the GHR-5H, GHR-5HC and GHR-5P were being made in anticipation of the original, global Energy change originally outlined the Patch Notes. As a result of the adjustments outlined above, we will not be going forward with those Grasshopper Quirk changes in the October patch.

I'm curious. Just how was GHR-5P's energy range nerf relevant to the laser cooldown nerf in the first place?

[Gas Guzzler]

Stinger554, on 16 October 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

FYI you should be looking at 2 LPL vs 6 ERML not 3 LPL by PGI's statement. If you were looking at 3 LPL VS 9 ERML then your personal preference would make more sense in line with PGI's statement.

Right so lighter mechs take ER MLs and heavier mechs take 3 LPLs. What's the problem? You are never going to get lights to bring LPLs more than ER MLs. Ever.

[dr3dnought]

Paul Inouye, on 16 October 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

Our main goal with this balance pass was to initially target Medium Lasers in terms of their use and effectiveness in the mid-range ‘Laser vomit’ builds currently being fielded. At this point our focus isn’t about targeting Alpha Strike capabilities specifically, but the overall usage of Medium Lasers when comparing them as a 1-ton weapon versus heavier weapons in the same class. For example, comparing 3 ER Medium lasers against a single Large Pulse Laser shows a significant imbalance when compared ton-for-ton when looking at weapons of relative range and damage profiles.

So we're looking at damage, weight and range.

(Damage / Tons) * Range (optimal)

IS SL 975
IS ML 1350
IS LL 810

IS ERSL 1300
IS ERML 1800
IS ERLL 1215

C ERSL 2000
C ERML 2800
C ERLL 2035

C HSL 1495
C HML 2700
C HLL 2025

Changes to cooldown do not affect the above stats. To factor in those changes I'll include cycle time:

((Damage / Cycle Time) / Tons) * Range

IS SL 325
IS ML 307 (was 346)
IS LL 193

IS ERSL 371
IS ERML 367 (was 424)
IS ERLL 270

C ERSL 465
C ERML 487 (was 560)
C ERLL 399

C HSL 288
C HML 389 (was 419)
C HLL 277

And since LPL were compared to ERML:
IS LPL 142
C LPL 280

So if this is what the nerf was trying to address, it looks like IS ML and ERML have been brought into the range they should be - between small and large lasers. However it appears that Clan ERML and HML are still 'over-performing' based on this stat.

I still think this hurts mixed builds using mediums as secondary weapons more than it does laser vomit because vomit is more limited by heat than cooldown, as others have mentioned.

[BrunoSSace]

Thank lord. Really worried about next month tho.

[Stinger554]

Gas Guzzler, on 16 October 2017 - 04:19 PM, said:

Right so lighter mechs take ER MLs and heavier mechs take 3 LPLs. What's the problem? You are never going to get lights to bring LPLs more than ER MLs. Ever.

The problem that PGI was/is seeing is that taking 3 ERML over a LPL was better ton for ton. So for heavier mechs it's better to use 3 ERML over a single LPL it's the same range profile, 4 ton's lighter, 5 more damage and with the extra heat sinks you can put on probably cooler. You don't see a problem with that?

[Jonathan8883]

Great.
Now can we get some SRM nerfing? I ran a bunch of scouting missions for the event (cool event btw), and the flat-out deadliest enemies were Assassins with 4 SRM+A packs, followed by Griffins with the same... then Bushwhackers and on down the weight class. The Assassin SRM boat simply dominated in DPS output.

Also, a lot of the little-used IS mechs need some quirking or boosting. My Spyder is completely retired - I picked up an Arctic Cheetah that can do everything the Spyder does, better, with triple the firepower and faster cooling. A hardpoint pass is probably too much to ask for, but some +5% tweaks on jumpjets, armor, etc. would help a number of IS mechs.
Look at the mechs owned by players active in the last X months. Then look at the % of play each mech is seeing. If your data shows that you have 5,000 players who own Panthers, and only 80 games where someone played a Panther in the last 3 months - give it something. I don't know what; I don't own one and it looks like they already have some good quirks, but are limited by hardpoint placement. Perhaps a +10% damage boost for PPC, ballistic, etc. for the respective mechs?

Another option would be to implement (re-implement) some form of Battle Value from tabletop, where a Panther is rated as equivalent to a Mist Lynx, a Cicada to an Arctic Cheetah, etc. This would help even out the matchmaking for QP, and could help with Faction Play.

I stay away from FP, too much time wasted dropping against organized curbstomp units.

Edited by Jonathan8883, 16 October 2017 - 05:07 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

This is an acceptable compromise, at least I will not have to retire my Grasshopper.

Jonathan8883, on 16 October 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

Great.
Now can we get some SRM nerfing? I ran a bunch of scouting missions for the event (cool event btw), and the flat-out deadliest enemies were Assassins with 4 SRM+A packs, followed by Griffins with the same... then Bushwhackers and on down the weight class. The Assassin SRM boat simply dominated in DPS output.

No, SRMs are fine the way they are, Clans just need to get their extra 5 tons back for scouting so they can take Splatcrows again. IS now has the Bushwhacker and Assassin as well as new tech, so the Splatcrow is no longer as dominant as it used to be.

[FupDup]

Thank mecha jesus that small and micro lasers aren't going to get nerfed...for now at least. The reduced magnitude of nerfage on the mediums is way better than the original patch proposal but it's still kind of misguided. See this example below:

Paul Inouye, on 16 October 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

At this point our focus isn’t about targeting Alpha Strike capabilities specifically, but the overall usage of Medium Lasers when comparing them as a 1-ton weapon versus heavier weapons in the same class. For example, comparing 3 ER Medium lasers against a single Large Pulse Laser shows a significant imbalance when compared ton-for-ton when looking at weapons of relative range and damage profiles.

The issue is that there's more to weapon balance than just raw tonnage. Weight is an important metric to consider, but it should NOT be the only consideration. There are also other factors like heat, range, duration/spread/velocity, etc.

In this specific example, that trio of ERML has the advantages of +5 alpha strike and -4 tons of weight consumed. That LPL has the advantages of +5m range (okay just a placebo), -0.23s duration, -6.25 heat, -0.35s cooldown time, -1 critslot, -2 hardpoints required, and -0.58 total cycle time.

That seriously doesn't look like it's horribly imbalanced in favor of the ER Mediums. After the cooldown nerf, the gap will be that much wider (-1s faster cooldown and -1.23s faster total cycle time).

This isn't even the best example because most of the time the large-class lasers have a much more drastic range advantage in the comparison than just 5 meters. And that extra range is supposed to come with the downside of being ton-for-ton less efficient. Otherwise long-range guns will match the damage output of specialized brawling guns, and then the meta will devolve into pure sniper fests.

Also consider that the high efficiency of medium-type lasers helps give tonnage-starved mechs like lights and mediums a legitimate option to mount effective damage without breaking balance because of other inherent drawbacks like heat/range/etc. Small pulse lasers for both factions are trash now. Small lasers of the various types range from poop (IS SL) to minimally adequate (IS/C ERSL). Micro lasers of both types on the Clan side are crap.

There aren't a lot of options left. I guess there's the MPL, which is fine but it's more of a brawling gun than a bread-and-butter generalist weapon. Otherwise those mechs are going to have to pick 2 or 3 ERLL and be useless troll mechs.

Edited by FupDup, 16 October 2017 - 05:48 PM.

[Sereglach]

PGI . . . Paul . . . y'all never seem to fail to understand what the community wants, no matter how many times it's written directly in front of you. I concur with the sentiment of others here:

Bud Crue, on 16 October 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

And another thing:

You say you have "direct feedback" on energy balance. Fine. We all see it here, reddit, and Russ's twitter feed as well, and at least in the general sense.

Now, cite to me 1 thread, just one, since new tech or skills tree that states or even suggests that medium lasers are over performing in the eyes of the community. One thread where folks are really bent over the capabilities of 3ERML vs a Large Pulse laser (If you want I can direct you to multiple threads where people were bent over the nerfs to the Large Pulse though...ya considering THAT direct feedback?). Lemme know. Please include full citations.

This nails it on the head. We've laid out problems and proposed solutions ever since the missile explosion AOE bug (an actual game glitch and not an outright balancing issue) was fixed and the Poptart meta came out in full force. Really people have been doing it before even that, but that's as far back as I can personally speak for. However, not once have people said, "The performance of the Medium series lasers is just outdoing everything else . . . it's terrible!" . . . or anything of similar effect. Also, as mentioned by others, looking to balance weapons exclusively off of their tonnage/crit sizes is a wretched way to address game balance that completely ignores the intended roles of the weapons in MWO . . . especially when so many facets of tabletop just do not translate into MWO . . . or were completely ignored for the "fun factor" or playability (ballistic minimum ranges, for example).

Frankly, it seems as though PGI created a phantom "problem" to "address" in this nerf rather than actually addressing the severe and thoroughly laid out concerns of the community.

To be direct here, these are 3 rampant mostly laser-based balance problems that I can instantly recall off of the top of my head, which have been presented by the community and have had solutions provided:

1. High Damage Alphas: The biggest proponent of the "Laser Vomit" meta, high damage Alphas are still ruling the game with an iron fist (and were even a part of the Poptart meta way back in the day). The solutions presented have been numerous, but none have revolved around increasing weapon cooldown on the lighest of weapons. The proposed changes of the original patch, as well as this "rolled back nerf" merely exacerbate the desires for a high alpha (better get in all the damage ASAP, because you've got longer cooldowns on your knife-fighting weapons).

2. Lasers are all the Same: In fact some of the solutions presented to the Alpha Issue revolve around the fact that all of the lasers are just the same "Laser Vomit Alpha" weapons regardless of type; and it's just a matter of laser duration. However, one solution to the laser issue involve making actual DPS pulse lasers with drastically decreased cooldown, heat, and damage to make truly superior DPS weapons that put ZERO emphasis on Alpha potential and rest solely on DPS strength. Then drastically widen the gaps between standard, er, and heavy lasers to further emphasize their strengths and weaknesses. That would help give players an actual choice in gameplay styles for the most common class of weapon in the game. Actual differentiation in Laser classes that promote real choice instead of "What's the biggest Alpha I can get?" would go a long way towards fixing this issue.

3. Heat Scale: Currently there are ZERO penalties for running your heat at critical levels and pushing out the biggest Alphas you can imagine, attempting to one-shot or cripple anything you look at. Again, the proposed solutions are numerous, ranging from a TT-esque scaling of performance penalties (reticle shake, max speed reductions, turn speed reductions, etc.), to revisiting energy draw, to redoing ghost heat, to a fixed & flat heat cap, and others. Truly addressing this problem would go a long way towards helping with the game's meta issues of "High Alpha first, or die". The only thing the old "structure damage on overheat" and "ghost heat" changes did was tell people to ride the red line, but don't cross it . . . otherwise there is zero risk for running a hot build.



Now that you are mostly rolling back this change, with a promise to readdress it, we know these changes are just a matter of time, and that does not leave people feeling comfortable about the direction of balance. However, taking the time to meaningfully address the 3 big issues above, which all revolve around "laser vomit" in some fashion, would go a long way towards making us believe you actually want to address the gameplay balance. In addition, providing meaningful data/logic in why given solutions are reached and actually responding to the volumes of feedback on your own forums would also help people at least understand why you're enacting a change, even if we don't agree with it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and while you're at it, Paul, please fix Flamers. Fixed and flat numbers that are manageable, easier to tune/balance, and scrapping the broken mechanics that caused Flamergeddon, and its band-aid fix, in the first place would be appreciated. Russ said we'd have this conversation at a later time . . . 18 months ago, so why can't we have this conversation, please?

Edited by Sereglach, 16 October 2017 - 07:07 PM.

[Sjorpha]

El Bandito, on 16 October 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

I'm curious. Just how was GHR-5P's energy range nerf relevant to the laser cooldown nerf in the first place?

It seems like they HAVE to say some weird mumbo jumbo about target values or the like with each change they make, maybe it is their version of flavor text and they use it as a creative writing outlet (instead of lore descriptions and story) to create a sense of drama.

They can't just say "Sorry we were wrong, like so many have pointed out the Grasshopper doesn't need those nerfs." for some reason that kind of clarity is simply not allowed.

[Rhialto]

woah, thanks to suffocater for posting the link to this thread with an update about the patch.

I mean we were all discussing it in the original thread and nobody from PGI thought it was a good idea to write a new post in that thread that the patch have been modified and that we should read again the patch announcement post at the top. Because you know, usually I don't read the patch details many times a day thinking it may have been modified. Instead I keep thread open and just refresh (F5) to see new posts.

Hey PGI, it's pretty cool that you post patch notes in advance now since a few months, right? I mean it can save you tons of insults from angry players because you can now react quickly like now and fix before patching instead of having to deal with a hot-patch after harm is done.

[vibrant]

It would help a lot if it were clear what each weapon type was intended for. E.g. SRMs are clear intended for very close range burst damage. C-UAC are intended for DPS. ERPPCs/gauss for sniping.

How are the various laser weapons supposed to be different to each other? E.g. in what way are the pulse lasers supposed to be different to standard lasers? If 3 IS medium lasers are generally considered better than a LPL in every way -- it appears to me to be a failure of design: excessively similar weapons without a clear differentiation of purpose.

What I'd love to see is some laser weapons intended for DPS, rather than burst damage. Something shorter range, useful for lights and mediums.

Edited by vibrant, 16 October 2017 - 06:11 PM.

[Necro Ash]

Dee Eight, on 16 October 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

The irony is of course... going from CBT... standard medium lasers have always been the ideal laser type and size. 270 meters of range for 1 ton, 1 crit, 3 heat, and 5 damage. Small lasers might have had the best damage to heat ratio but at 90 meters their range sucked. Large lasers had more range but that came at the expense of only equal heat to damage, for a lot more weapon mass. Except in this game where CBT rules don't matter in the dart board of balance destiny.

That's the rub for me at least.

So lets look at what we are talking over: balances that include nerfs, tweaks, ghost heat rules, debate over using energy draw, skills for heat capacity, skills for heat dispersal, DHS that aren't DHS depending on where they are placed in a mech, hardpoint amounts, Clan vs IS balance, etc.

How about a simple solution that removes a lot of the variables, simplifying the math.

Feel free to counter, but please propose an alternate concept for purposes of discussion.

I propose setting heat cap at 35 for all mechs. Larger mechs will have more heat sinks, but also more weapons to cool from so a kind of internal balance is maintained within the mech.

. Ghost heat would not really be needed anymore as you could only fire 10 IS mediums at once (50 damage, comparable to current alphas) for example or 4 IS large lasers on a cool map (32 heat). Anything more would overheat. Period, done. No ghost heat math needed.

35 would be 2 erppcs. or 2 lpl plus some other stuff. Works for both Clan and IS.

Vomit alphas cut down in size, increasing time to kill. Short range weapons with lower heat amounts would result in larger damage amounts if the brawler closes the distance. Ballistics get a jump in function due to lower heat allotments. Varied loadouts should also start to appear for different weapon ranges.

Just a thought I had.

[dr3dnought]

Stinger554, on 16 October 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

The problem that PGI was/is seeing is that taking 3 ERML over a LPL was better ton for ton. So for heavier mechs it's better to use 3 ERML over a single LPL it's the same range profile, 4 ton's lighter, 5 more damage and with the extra heat sinks you can put on probably cooler. You don't see a problem with that?

The problem with using lighter weapons on heavier mechs and packing in heat sinks is you run out of space before you run out of tonnage (especially with IS DHS) unless you bump up the engine, so it's faster DPS builds that have been nerfed more than slower alpha-based builds.

Looking at a Battlemaster with 6 torso energy hardpoints, you can take 6 ERML and 13+10 DHS, LFE400 (76kph). Thats a 30 alpha for 27 heat with 1.56 heat management. This is more reliant on DPS and will be hurt a lot by the cooldown nerf.

Or you can put on 3 LPL and 3 ERML with 10+10 DHS, LFE360 (68kph). Thats a 46 alpha for 35.25 heat with 1.16 heat management. This is more limited by heat than cooldown and won't be hurt much by the cooldown nerf.

Or, if you use weapon groups to avoid ghost heat, you can put on 4 LPL and 2 ERML with 9+10 DHS, LFE340 (64kph). Thats a 50 'alpha' for 38 heat with 1.16 heat management. This is also more limited by heat than cooldown.

I'm not sure why the first build was the problem that needed fixing.

[FupDup]

vibrant, on 16 October 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

It would help a lot if it were clear what each weapon type was intended for. E.g. SRMs are clear intended for very close range burst damage. C-UAC are intended for DPS. ERPPCs/gauss for sniping.

How are the various laser weapons supposed to be different to each other? E.g. in what way are the pulse lasers supposed to be different to standard lasers? If 3 IS medium lasers are generally considered better than a LPL in every way -- it appears to me to be a failure of design: excessively similar weapons without a clear differentiation of purpose.

What I'd love to see is some laser weapons intended for DPS, rather than burst damage. Something shorter range, useful for lights and mediums.

There's been a popular forum idea to make pulse lasers fill that energy-DPS role, and PGI even tried to go in that direction a little bit...But they didn't go nearly far enough. Pulse lasers are still mechanically focused on burst damage (alpha strike), they just alpha a little bit faster than ER or normal lasers.

What PGI ought to do is make all pulses fire at a fast rate similar to an AC/2 or AC/5, with correspondingly adjusted damage and heat per shot. Overall pulses should have higher DPS and lower HPS (for sustainability) at the cost of now being a facetime weapon.

[InvictusLee]

Hi Paul.

Thanks for the lasers! You do care! I'm touched!

I'm genuinely confused about the Artemis nerf?
Care to enlighten me a little?
I promise I wont flame you. D:

[Baphomech]

Good compromise. Thank you for listening to the community.

[Gas Guzzler]

Stinger554, on 16 October 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

The problem that PGI was/is seeing is that taking 3 ERML over a LPL was better ton for ton. So for heavier mechs it's better to use 3 ERML over a single LPL it's the same range profile, 4 ton's lighter, 5 more damage and with the extra heat sinks you can put on probably cooler. You don't see a problem with that?

Nope. You are looking at balance in a vacuum. No good builds incorporate 3 ER ML or a single LPL. 6ERML is an unacceptable loadout for a heavy, yet 3 LL/LPL is commonly used, or 5 ER LL. ERMLs are only used to supplement blue lasers, a Gauss, or on mediums/lights. Yes, I have an Uziel that uses 4ERML and a Gauss, for a BREATHTAKING 35 damage alpha at 400 ish meters. You want to nerf the DPS on that mech? Fine, back to the vanilla 3LL/3LPL then.