58 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

With my discussion on my other thread, Dakota1000 told me that perhaps PGI was right about Medium Lasers being too effective at their weight -- i mean why would people take AC5 for 8 tons and requires ammo over medium lasers? I mean yes there's the range, the cooldown, the duration, but at the same weight you could have boat 8 medium lasers and dealt more damage, and compensate with good heat management right?

The cooldown nerf is rather heavy handed, but the medium lasers deserving of nerf at something else however, I feel that such is also applicable with larger lasers by the same logic. Why use AC5 or AC10s when you can use Large Lasers enmasse? why use AC20 when you can enmasse medium lasers, even just SNPPCs?

I think that the nature of Lasers -- being hit-scan, makes them inherently easier to use, and make other weapons just trivial to use, that's why they result in the poke meta, and Laser Vomit being predominantly effective.

What if we increase Durations accross the board? This doesn't mean that we shouldn't buff the other weapons too, however i feel that it's prudent to provide a complete global nerf of Laser Durations to give way for other weapons without the slippery slope of powercreeping.

The total duration + Cooldown should remain the same though. Previously, C-ERLL before duration buff seems to be kind of unwieldy, but maybe that's just because other weapons on offer par better.

e.g.

Quote

I made Large Lasers as the baseline, these establishes the maximum durations, and from there we can work the lesser lasers with. C-MPL is the most beautiful iteration of Clan Pulse, it's how Clan Pulse Lasers should have handled -- equal damage but shorter beam, lower heat and lower range, that lower heat alone yet above IS range is enough for that extra ton. And so the LPL and SPL will follow that trend.

(+) = Buff
(-) = Nerf

IS (ER)LL Duration: 1.20s (-)
IS LL Cooldown: 2.60s (+)
IS ER LL Cooldown: 3.00s (+)
IS LPL Damage: 11 (+)
IS LPL Duration: 0.90s (-)
IS LPL Cooldown: 3.30s (-)

Clan ER LL Duration: 1.50s (-)
Clan ER LL Cooldown: 3.75s (+)
Clan LPL Damage: 11 (-)
Clan LPL Heat: 9.2 (+)
Clan LPL Duration: 1.20s (-)
Clan LPL Cooldown: 2.70s (+)
Clan HLL Damage: 15 (-)
Clan HLL Heat: 13 (+)
Clan HLL Duration: 2.00s (-)
Clan HLL Cooldown: 4.05s (+)

That Clan HLL being at 2s duration though, that's highly warranted and had it coming. Seriously 4-tons, 18 damage? Come on, that's twice the damage of an IS Large Laser, and -1 ton. I also adjusted the Clan LPL to have effectively the same damage as the ER version, only it does damage faster and is cooler.

Quote

I've patterned the C ERML over the old C-ERLL to give it the much deserved nerf it needs, i mean it's a 1-Ton Large-Laser for clans, yes not quite the damage, but all the versatility. The IS ML is instead patterned over Clan ERSL, but it does have the range. The DPS should still be high, it only affects the time one needs to stare into.

IS (ER)ML Duration: 1.00s (-)
IS ML Cooldown: 2.75s (+)
IS ER ML Cooldown: 2.90s (+)
IS MPL Duration: 0.80s (-)
IS MPL Cooldown: 2.60s (+)

Clan ER ML Duration: 1.40s (-)
Clan ER ML Cooldown: 3.55s (+)
Clan MPL Duration: 1.00s (-)
Clan MPL Cooldown: 2.80s (+)
Clan HML Duration: 1.80s (-)
Clan HML Cooldown: 3.95s (+)

Quote

For the SLs, I rolled back the nerf and gave more damage for the SPLs. I also followed the format of C-MPL equal damage but faster and less heat, because i felt that C-MPL is how Clan Pulse Lasers should have been handled.

IS (ER)SL Duration: 0.70s (-)
IS SL Cooldown: 2.30s (+)
IS ER SL Cooldown: 2.60s (-)
IS SPL Damage: 4 (+)
IS SPL Heat: 1.95 (-)
IS SPL Duration: 0.60s (-)
IS SPL Cooldown: 2.10s (-)

Clan ER SL Duration: 1.05s (-)
Clan ER SL Cooldown: 1.65s (+)
Clan SPL Damage: 5 (+)
Clan SPL Heat: 3.0 (-)
Clan SPL Duration: 0.80s (-)
Clan SPL Cooldown: 1.60s (-)
Clan HSL Duration: 1.40s (-)
Clan HSL Cooldown: 3.80s (+)

Those values are just an idea, they are most likely not balanced, but that's the spirit of what i expect to see.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 03 January 2018 - 09:01 PM.

[Dago Red]

I'm not inherently opposed to the concept but I can't see any burn duration higher than 2 seconds being workable. And even that is probably a little over the top.

Edited by Dago Red, 02 January 2018 - 02:24 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Dago Red, on 02 January 2018 - 02:16 AM, said:

I'm not gonna inherently opposed to the concept but I can't see any burn duration higher than 2 seconds being workable. And even that is probably a little over the top.

We could probably do that as the HLL, and work down from there.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The issue you run into with super long durations is team damage.

As I said in full in my original post on the matter, lasers are in a fine spot at the moment, its the other weapons in need of buffing to be brought up to the laser's positions. I stated that if we nerf things too far, nerfing the last of the viable weapons, we end up in a situation where we break the game. Things all end up being too ineffective at doing damage and all the guns are too unwieldy from super long duration lasers to jamming UACs to spread out missiles.

You're going in the opposite direction compared to what I'd like to see, but you are "bringing balance to the force" in a way. The long duration of the MLs would actually give people some reason to pick a light ppc over 3 ERMLs even when doing 3 times less damage. The long duration of the lasers would make laser alphas take so long that autocannon builds get way more shots on them, thus knocking laser builds down to AC levels on trading damage for damage.

Also is that a typo on the IS LPL duration being 0.6 seconds or is there some reasoning behind it?


Still, these stats could warrant some testing done, but I really doubt that many people would accept the changes, as you're nerfing the most commonly and universally used weapon type in the entire game. The uproar would be insane, another reason why I advocate buffing underperformers rather than pulling a PGI and metaphorically using the IS small laser as a balance baseline for all the other lasers.

[Dago Red]

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 02:27 AM, said:

The issue you run into with super long durations is team damage.

Hey now baiting clanners into back coring each other over and over again until they broke down into a tking three stooges routine was one of the real joys of the initial invasion era. Surely bringing that back could only be a good thing.

Edited by Dago Red, 02 January 2018 - 05:16 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 02:27 AM, said:

Also is that a typo on the IS LPL duration being 0.6 seconds or is there some reasoning behind it?

Yes. It's supposed to be 1.60s. I just copy paste.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 02:27 AM, said:

The issue you run into with super long durations is team damage.

Yeah, but isn't that mistakes made? Isn't that people walking into your fire is their fault? Yes you should stop right away, but honestly it's more of their fault walking into your fire. Also the reduced damage/tick means they would be damaged less.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 02:27 AM, said:

As I said in full in my original post on the matter, lasers are in a fine spot at the moment, its the other weapons in need of buffing to be brought up to the laser's positions. I stated that if we nerf things too far, nerfing the last of the viable weapons, we end up in a situation where we break the game. Things all end up being too ineffective at doing damage and all the guns are too unwieldy from super long duration lasers to jamming UACs to spread out missiles.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 02:27 AM, said:

Still, these stats could warrant some testing done, but I really doubt that many people would accept the changes, as you're nerfing the most commonly and universally used weapon type in the entire game. The uproar would be insane, another reason why I advocate buffing underperformers rather than pulling a PGI and metaphorically using the IS small laser as a balance baseline for all the other lasers.

But if we keep buffing, we powercreep. Also TTK is still pretty unhealthy, so that's my approach. Yes, there would be just so much flak, but if gameplay would be balanced, it has to be done, people need to understand that.

Sure, we can also buff the weapons by a bit, we both know that RAC2 and LGR is too damn anemic anyways and is due for a just plain buff, and RACs as a whole has problems with how it delivers it's damage, LBXs are a let down especially that IS LB20X, UACs are sometimes just annoying and unreliable, etc.

However i am thinking of the TTK as well, buff ACs DPS out and we just lower that TTK. We could answer the gripes of other weapons, and then just nerf Laser Durations as well, how does that sound?

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 02:27 AM, said:

You're going in the opposite direction compared to what I'd like to see, but you are "bringing balance to the force" in a way. The long duration of the MLs would actually give people some reason to pick a light ppc over 3 ERMLs even when doing 3 times less damage. The long duration of the lasers would make laser alphas take so long that autocannon builds get way more shots on them, thus knocking laser builds down to AC levels on trading damage for damage.

Yep, that's what i want to happen, EXACT-*******-LY. But merely buffing the other weapons won't be enough for the fundamental flaw in mechanics.

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 02:18 AM, said:

Dago Red, on 02 January 2018 - 02:16 AM, said:

I'm not gonna inherently opposed to the concept but I can't see any burn duration higher than 2 seconds being workable. And even that is probably a little over the top.

We could probably do that as the HLL, and work down from there.

Did it:

HLL is now at 2.00s, and the rest are now adjusted.

Spoiler

Quote

IS (ER)ML Duration: 1.00s
IS ML Cooldown: 2.75s
IS ER ML Cooldown: 2.90s
IS MPL Duration: 0.80s
IS MPL Cooldown: 2.60s

Clan ER ML Duration: 1.40s
Clan ER ML Cooldown: 3.55s
Clan MPL Duration: 0.90s
Clan MPL Cooldown: 2.90s
Clan HML Duration: 1.80s
Clan HML Cooldown: 3.95s

Quote

Clan ER Micro L Duration: 0.80s
Clan ER Micro L Cooldown: 2.20s
Clan Micro PL Duration: 0.60s
Clan Micro PL Cooldown: 1.50s

Quote

IS (ER)SL Duration: 0.80s
IS SL Cooldown: 2.20s
IS ER SL Cooldown: 2.60s
IS SPL Damage: 4
IS SPL Heat: 1.95
IS SPL Duration: 0.60s
IS SPL Cooldown: 2.10s

Clan ER SL Duration: 1.25s
Clan ER SL Cooldown: 1.45s
Clan SPL Damage: 5
Clan SPL Heat: 3.0
Clan SPL Duration: 0.80s
Clan SPL Cooldown: 1.60s
Clan HSL Duration: 1.60s
Clan HSL Cooldown: 3.60s

Quote

IS (ER)LL Duration: 1.20s
IS LL Cooldown: 3.00s
IS ER LL Cooldown: 2.60s
IS LPL Duration: 1.00s
IS LPL Cooldown: 3.20s

Clan ER LL Duration: 1.45s
Clan ER LL Cooldown: 3.80s
Clan LPL Damage: 11
Clan LPL Heat: 9.2
Clan LPL Duration: 1.275s
Clan LPL Cooldown: 2.625s
Clan HLL Damage: 15
Clan HLL Heat: 13
Clan HLL Duration: 2.00s
Clan HLL Cooldown: 4.05s

Edited by The6thMessenger, 02 January 2018 - 03:20 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 02:45 AM, said:

Yes. It's supposed to be 1.60s. I just copy paste.



Yeah, but isn't that mistakes made? Isn't that people walking into your fire is their fault? Yes you should stop right away, but honestly it's more of their fault walking into your fire. Also the reduced damage/tick means they would be damaged less.



But if we keep buffing, we powercreep. Also TTK is still pretty unhealthy, so that's my approach. Yes, there would be just so much flak, but if gameplay would be balanced, it has to be done, people need to understand that.

Sure, we can also buff the weapons by a bit, we both know that RAC2 and LGR is too damn anemic anyways and is due for a just plain buff, and RACs as a whole has problems with how it delivers it's damage, LBXs are a let down especially that IS LB20X, UACs are sometimes just annoying and unreliable, etc.

However i am thinking of the TTK as well, buff ACs DPS out and we just lower that TTK. We could answer the gripes of other weapons, and then just nerf Laser Durations as well, how does that sound?



Yep, that's what i want to happen, EXACT-*******-LY. But merely buffing the other weapons won't be enough for the fundamental flaw of mechanics.

As I see it, slow powercreep is very healthy for online games. It keeps things fresh by adding new things into the meta, assuming that you also bring old things up to the level of those that are new, this way variety grows rather than stagnates into the currently small selection of competitively viable options that we have in this game that attempts so desperately to nerf everything rather than have powercreep.

Another question to ask, is it powercreep at all if you bring the worst options up to that of the best options? You aren't raising any bars here. If we went and buffed the Vindicator to the point that it could compete with an Assassin was that powercreeping or was that balance? Technically nothing is any more powerful than the previous most powerful but now there is equality at the top.

This is why I don't really see a buff to ACs or missiles as a decrease in TTK, it would only make all weapon classes equal in TTK rather than ACs and Missiles being horribly behind. When I take looks into balance I'd rather take approaches that provide balance while also making the playerbase happy, this way you don't just bleed population away with every patch and start growing it instead. Buffing can provide balance just as well as nerfing. We could bring up the other weapons to the same level of ability as laser+gauss combos but then also bring up underperforming mechs with various forms of defensive boosts which counteracts some of the TTK issues, balances out weapons, and balances out chassis all at the same time all without a single direct nerf while also bringing back some interest from all those people who have been sitting for years waiting for their pet trash mech to finally get a buff.

As for the mistakes made part with team damage. I'm more worried about the game disruption that would cause, once against a playerbase happiness issue. Players don't like team damage, they don't like when players walk into their firing line, and this change makes both of those about twice as common. A little bit of idiot proofing goes a long way.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 03:22 AM, said:

As I see it, slow powercreep is very healthy for online games. It keeps things fresh by adding new things into the meta, assuming that you also bring old things up to the level of those that are new, this way variety grows rather than stagnates into the currently small selection of competitively viable options that we have in this game that attempts so desperately to nerf everything rather than have powercreep.

But as i see it, MWO already attempts too much to compensate for the fact that we have pin-point accuracy that results in the low TTK. Why wouldn't it work otherwise? Why not bring the overperforming equipment to the level of the underperforming equipment? The result would be the same, you would still bring variety by making the underperformers more of a choice.

We cannot do much without addressing the problem, and that is Lasers being too damn easy to use. Just point, click, stare for a while, then fade. By lowering the overperformers, we create a space to breathe.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 03:22 AM, said:

Another question to ask, is it powercreep at all if you bring the worst options up to that of the best options? You aren't raising any bars here. If we went and buffed the Vindicator to the point that it could compete with an Assassin was that powercreeping or was that balance? Technically nothing is any more powerful than the previous most powerful but now there is equality at the top.

Which is your baseline? What if Assassin itself is overperforming against it's peers?

I prefer to look at it by which is under or overperforming. Such as if Laser/Gauss Vomit is the go to, when LRMs, SRMs, ATM, and other ballistic weapons are just meh, then i guess I'll touch the damn lasers.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 03:22 AM, said:

This is why I don't really see a buff to ACs or missiles as a decrease in TTK, it would only make all weapon classes equal in TTK rather than ACs and Missiles being horribly behind.

We can also make weapon classes equal by making the Lasers as behind as ACs and Missiles. It's not just about retaining the TTK, but increasing it due to it being lowered with MWO being pin-point in nature. That is what i was trying to address.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 03:22 AM, said:

When I take looks into balance I'd rather take approaches that provide balance while also making the playerbase happy, this way you don't just bleed population away with every patch and start growing it instead. Buffing can provide balance just as well as nerfing. We could bring up the other weapons to the same level of ability as laser+gauss combos but then also bring up underperforming mechs with various forms of defensive boosts which counteracts some of the TTK issues, balances out weapons, and balances out chassis all at the same time all without a single direct nerf while also bringing back some interest from all those people who have been sitting for years waiting for their pet trash mech to finally get a buff.

Wouldn't it be an indirect buff though? I mean their pet-trash-mech still becomes viable because the bar has been lowered. The weapons that used to nuked them instantly would be no more, mechs that used to be overquirked by armor/structure will now be as fragile as them. It's now an environment where the pet-trash-mech is a bit more viable than what it was before.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 03:22 AM, said:

As for the mistakes made part with team damage. I'm more worried about the game disruption that would cause, once against a playerbase happiness issue. Players don't like team damage, they don't like when players walk into their firing line, and this change makes both of those about twice as common. A little bit of idiot proofing goes a long way.

That really sounds more like player problems. Sure we can idiot-proof weapons, but maybe we can just remove FF as a whole.

[Lily from animove]

How about no?

Have your thought about all themechs that have to rely on smaller amounts of lasers because of tonnage?
The issue with laservomit is how you can spam them way too much. the solution is to stop making people alpha them, but there we go, 30 heattreshold again pls.
1-3 lasers aren't overperforming. it's boating them that makes stuff break the point of horrible efficiency.

if heat restricts people form alphaing them (multiple times) they basically will be "longer beamduration" by having to mix them or fire them sequentially.

Edited by Lily from animove, 02 January 2018 - 04:10 AM.

[Curccu]

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 02:45 AM, said:

Yeah, but isn't that mistakes made? Isn't that people walking into your fire is their fault? Yes you should stop right away, but honestly it's more of their fault walking into your fire.

Yet I am the one who gets the penalty if some dimwit walks into my lasors/strikes so on.

[The6thMessenger]

Lily from animove, on 02 January 2018 - 04:09 AM, said:

How about no?

Have your thought about all the mechs that have to rely on smaller amounts of lasers because of tonnage?

Yes.

I also have figured out that the problem is that shoot and scoot, and how it favors the laser by it's ease of use, such as hit-scan.

Lily from animove, on 02 January 2018 - 04:09 AM, said:

The issue with laservomit is how you can spam them way too much. the solution is to stop making people alpha them, but there we go, 30 heattreshold again pls.
1-3 lasers aren't overperforming. it's boating them that makes stuff break the point of horrible efficiency.

Well, why go AC5 when you have a Medium Laser for 1 ton? Or simmilarly why go AC5 for 8 tons, when you have ER Laser for 5 tons? Sure there's heat, but good heat management and build can compensate with that. Yes that's 5 PPFLD, but then if you can retain your beam, that's already fine in most cases.

Lily from animove, on 02 January 2018 - 04:09 AM, said:

if heat restricts people form alphaing them (multiple times) they basically will be "longer beamduration" by having to mix them or fire them sequentially.

But you still have the shoot and scoot, and the short durations of them vomiting, and then behind the cover hiding. The increased duration compensates for other weapons.

Curccu, on 02 January 2018 - 04:17 AM, said:

Yet I am the one who gets the penalty if some dimwit walks into my lasors/strikes so on.

That's why i prefer to turn it off altogether.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 02 January 2018 - 04:18 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 03:44 AM, said:

But as i see it, MWO already attempts too much to compensate for the fact that we have pin-point accuracy that results in the low TTK. Why wouldn't it work otherwise? Why not bring the overperforming equipment to the level of the underperforming equipment? The result would be the same, you would still bring variety by making the underperformers more of a choice.

We cannot do much without addressing the problem, and that is Lasers being too damn easy to use. Just point, click, stare for a while, then fade. By lowering the overperformers, we create a space to breathe.



Which is your baseline? What if Assassin itself is overperforming against it's peers?

I prefer to look at it by which is under or overperforming. Such as if Laser/Gauss Vomit is the go to, when LRMs, SRMs, ATM, and other ballistic weapons are just meh, then i guess I'll touch the damn lasers.



We can also make weapon classes equal by making the Lasers as behind as ACs and Missiles. It's not just about retaining the TTK, but increasing it due to it being lowered with MWO being pin-point in nature. That is what i was trying to address.



Wouldn't it be an indirect buff though? I mean their pet-trash-mech still becomes viable because the bar has been lowered. The weapons that used to nuked them instantly would be no more, mechs that used to be overquirked by armor/structure will now be as fragile as them. It's now an environment where the pet-trash-mech is a bit more viable than what it was before.



That really sounds more like player problems. Sure we can idiot-proof weapons, but maybe we can just remove FF as a whole.

I've been advocating for removing team damage since all the talk of team killers going around, its just a logical option.

Indirect buffs are never quite like direct buffs. The issue with the blanket indirect nerfs to entire weapon systems is that they harm the already weak mechs more than the good ones. Lets take the Ice Ferret as an example. That mech's unable to even bring ballistics past a UAC5, doesn't really have the missile hardpoints to effectively SRM boat (at least compared to the Arctic Wolf that moves the same speed). It relies entirely upon CERMLs to survive, after the CSPL nerf. If we were to nerf CERMLs then we are not giving an indirect buff at all to that mech by taking away the weapons that used to nuke it because it used those same weapons itself. In the end its a direct nerf rather than an indirect buff. The strong mechs are resilient enough to last through blanket nerf bombs yet the weak just fall right into the ditch to be buried. I went through this when my old favorite the Executioner went through the CSPL nerfs, it was already a mech on life support and they cut the cord on it's last bit of brawling potential and in return i only got a pitiful sub 10 structure boost if I didn't take the few hardpoints that the thing got that weren't below the hip.

I'm not really of the opinion that time to kill really needs a large increase past what we currently have through weapon nerfs, rather we could increase torso twisting speed to allow players to actively increase their own time to kill, thus providing some more player input into the defensive aspects of the game that used to be present before ye olde mobility nerfs when they reduced the old skill tree's bonuses by a factor of 10 all at once.

My baseline is always the top performer of a class. Especially in cases where that mech has no quirks. For example with the Kodiak, rather than nerfing its mobility and effectively nuking all the other variants that couldn't survive like the KDK-3 could I would have given mobility, offense, and defense buffs to other mechs to bring their abilities up. For example, the KDK-3 would be a semi nimble assault with high levels of ballistic firepower but no quirks for that. The Dire Wolf would be slow but could be given high defensive and offensive quirks so that it has something like 30 CT and ST armor boost along with heat and cooldown quirks so that it may effectively perform its role as a tanky gunboat in a way similar to the current Annihilator does while the KDK would be the gunboat that must use more cover and dodge shots but can't really win in direct combat.

My above option of increasing torso twist speeds by like a factor of x5 would make lasers harder to use again by allowing people to manually spread the incoming beam rather than everyone wielding lightsabers.


As for the reason of not bringing overperformers all down to the levels of the underperformers. Its that it feels wrong. If you've bought a Spirit Bear you know how it once was to have been able to be mobile in that mech, how it wasn't the best but yet was workable and overall it just felt nice to drive. Then after the nerf you get into it and it feels like a dump truck, nothing you do in it really is viable, you know you'd be better off in something else. Nerfs, especially huge, deep cutting, sweeping nerfs anger a large portion of the population, run off a good number of players, reduce the game's sales since no one wants to buy a mech for it to get every reason that they bought it nerfed away. On the flip side buffs have the opposite effect. Buffs, especially huge buffs make a lot of people happy, potentially bring back players over the commotion, increase sales or player counts as people buy or grind to test out the new changes in the mech, and it reassures that when you buy a mech it won't lose all of its personality at once in some nerf, forcing you to mothball it.

[The6thMessenger]

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

Indirect buffs are never quite like direct buffs. The issue with the blanket indirect nerfs to entire weapon systems is that they harm the already weak mechs more than the good ones.

If we were to nerf CERMLs then we are not giving an indirect buff at all to that mech by taking away the weapons that used to nuke it because it used those same weapons itself. In the end its a direct nerf rather than an indirect buff. The strong mechs are resilient enough to last through blanket nerf bombs yet the weak just fall right into the ditch to be buried. I went through this when my old favorite the Executioner went through the CSPL nerfs, it was already a mech on life support and they cut the cord on it's last bit of brawling potential and in return i only got a pitiful sub 10 structure boost if I didn't take the few hardpoints that the thing got that weren't below the hip.

But still, aren't they underperformers requiring buffs in the first place? I mean, yes, sure, there are mechs on life support. But that sounds more like them needing a buff for relevance, than keeping the balance unhealthy for them to be relevant.

As for them, remember the other mechs are ALSO gimped by the laser nerf. That means the lasers that supposedly kills dear Ice Ferret and Executioner would also take longer to kill said dear mechs. Understandably, yes, on the output, they dish less damage, but again that is more of the problem of the mech. Why would we make the over all balance unhealthy, than fringe mechs needing buffs in the first place?

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

I'm not really of the opinion that time to kill really needs a large increase past what we currently have through weapon nerfs, rather we could increase torso twisting speed to allow players to actively increase their own time to kill, thus providing some more player input into the defensive aspects of the game that used to be present before ye olde mobility nerfs when they reduced the old skill tree's bonuses by a factor of 10 all at once.

And i am in the opinion that we need to increase time to kill. Yes, there are those like Dire Wolf need mobility buffs to stay relevant, but honestly, adding both would work as well.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

My baseline is always the top performer of a class.

And my baseline is the average, it's what mechs, what populations have in common. I don't want to sound like a ****, but do you know what a bell curve is?

I prefer to keep everything balanced slightly, only over performing on certain aspects I'm open for them to specialize. Of course with mechs being possible to be built for many other roles, it's probably best to keep them only slightly good at certain things.

When i look at a mech, I look at timber wolf. Not over-performing or under-performing -- sure it needs it's torso speed and yaw back prior to engine desync, but what i love about that mech is how it's just decent, you can build it with many things.

Yes, that luxury is not accessible to many other mechs, many specialize. But that doesn't mean we should just buff everything else to what said mech specializes, what about the viability of other reasonable build that can be done? Isn't that the point of the mech lab is for everyone to experiment with builds? Build as they like? (so long as they contribute), but what's the point if you just buy mechs for a specific build?

That's like buying LEGOs and having it left built exactly how the instructions said it.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

As for the reason of not bringing overperformers all down to the levels of the underperformers. Its that it feels wrong.

Well, it doesn't feel wrong to me. You think i wouldn't be open for the Urbanmech to be nerfed to hell -- on the premise that it's OP and broken?

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

If you've bought a Spirit Bear you know how it once was to have been able to be mobile in that mech, how it wasn't the best but yet was workable and overall it just felt nice to drive. Then after the nerf you get into it and it feels like a dump truck, nothing you do in it really is viable, you know you'd be better off in something else.

That's sounds more like poorly handled nerf than anything. Nerfs are fine so long as if it's warranted, but too much -- just as with anything -- is the problem. We all know how only the KDK-3 is overperforming with 4x UAC10, but both UAC10 and KDK as a series of chassis as a whole got nuked.

I get that my own proposal is a sweeping, nuke-ish nerf with the lasers, but with how it's placed right now, we're pretty sure that this is warranted.

I don't want to get personal, but really that sounds like you regretting buying a mech, that you bought because you know that it's better than the old content. Basically you riding the power creep. I get that you want to add more variations, but it just sounds like you being a proud pay-to-win user.

From a business standpoint, sure that could probably be good idea to introduce progressively OP content to keep people buying. But that wouldn't be balance, that's a scam. That's like Apple slowing down their old phones so people would buy their new one, it's basically a **** move.

Dakota1000, on 02 January 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

Nerfs, especially huge, deep cutting, sweeping nerfs anger a large portion of the population, run off a good number of players, reduce the game's sales since no one wants to buy a mech for it to get every reason that they bought it nerfed away.

On the flip side buffs have the opposite effect. Buffs, especially huge buffs make a lot of people happy, potentially bring back players over the commotion, increase sales or player counts as people buy or grind to test out the new changes in the mech, and it reassures that when you buy a mech it won't lose all of its personality at once in some nerf, forcing you to mothball it.

Yes, and that's power creep. There's a reason why Power Creeping has a negative connotation. Such as how it obsoletes old content, in which what we see in MWO. It could end up pay to win optimize, it's exactly Purifier, or Deahstrike.

I get that we have a player base to satisfy, but we also have a game to balance. It's a free to play game. I wasn't totally against just buffing AC and other mechs, hell, the RAC2 and LGR NEEDS a god damn buff. But the problem is that you can't just keep buffing and buffing, just as you can't keep nerfing and nerfing, that's why i was still open to the ballistics buffs.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 02 January 2018 - 05:08 AM.

[kapusta11]

Outside some ouliers like cERML, I'd rather un-nerf U/AC heat, SRM spread and mech mobility.

Edited by kapusta11, 02 January 2018 - 05:10 AM.

[Lily from animove]

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 04:17 AM, said:

Yes.

I also have figured out that the problem is that shoot and scoot, and how it favors the laser by it's ease of use, such as hit-scan.



Well, why go AC5 when you have a Medium Laser for 1 ton? Or simmilarly why go AC5 for 8 tons, when you have ER Laser for 5 tons? Sure there's heat, but good heat management and build can compensate with that. Yes that's 5 PPFLD, but then if you can retain your beam, that's already fine in most cases.



But you still have the shoot and scoot, and the short durations of them vomiting, and then behind the cover hiding. The increased duration compensates for other weapons.



That's why i prefer to turn it off altogether.

Shoot and scoot works with other setups as well, thats not a laser exclusive thing.
AC 5's because you shake your opponents, and it's a lot more dps and dph. And if you ever played a a blackjack or jäger lurking over a hill and shooting ACs on opponents below you, you know why they are fun (and evil). Ac's just have that ammo issues which especially in FP is a bit derpy because good pilots will stay alive longer than ammo can last. Shoot and scoot is also why gauss is played, works the same and if we had better tonnaged guass rangign from 4t+ we wuld see a lot more gauss beeing used. But gauss dont come in 10different variants allowing all chassis to utilize them properly. Thats why lasers are so prominent They come in all sorts of sizes and so most chassis find any of the lasers having utility for them. Also, there aren't good heatbuilds on lasers. show me an equivalent heatbuild for a 6xAC5 direwolf. You simply cannot. Ammo is just the issue for good pilots. but if you make lasers burn longer they kind aget pointless for all mechs with less hardpoints and mechs not havign tonnage for other weapons. And then you amde even more mechs dead. Why is the Dakkabear a working thing? because lasers OP? Surely not. it's justa lot mechs that have issues using B and M properly to make them workable. So peopel go over to alservomit. because laservomit espeically now with heavy lasers work due to slots beeing not much of an issue on all sorts of lasers. And Since people play what they are used to they often stay with lasers.

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 03:44 AM, said:

That really sounds more like player problems. Sure we can idiot-proof weapons, but maybe we can just remove FF as a whole.

There is no way in Sokar will I be agreeable to that. Remove FF and the game has reached dumbed-down rock bottom.

[Sigmar Sich]

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 01:54 AM, said:

.....
I think that the nature of Lasers -- being hit-scan, makes them inherently easier to use, and make other weapons just trivial to use.
.....
What if we increase Durations accross the board? The total duration + Cooldown should remain the same though.
.....

I agree absolutely, exactly same reasoning i have and same solution i was suggesting.

P.S. Also LRM indirect fire IMO should be more like HBS BT game, since we talking about "too easy to use" weapons. With appropriate ECM changes, to compensate this "nerf".
P.P.S. Game have a lot of mediocre and just bad design decisions that needs rework. But both dev's and player's attitude "don't touch it if it works, even if it works poorly" probably will bury any major changes.

[The6thMessenger]

Lily from animove, on 02 January 2018 - 05:21 AM, said:

Shoot and scoot works with other setups as well, thats not a laser exclusive thing.

Yes, but lasers are notorious for it because they work well.

Lily from animove, on 02 January 2018 - 05:21 AM, said:

AC 5's because you shake your opponents, and it's a lot more dps and dph.

And if you ever played a a blackjack or jäger lurking over a hill and shooting ACs on opponents below you, you know why they are fun (and evil). Ac's just have that ammo issues which especially in FP is a bit derpy because good pilots will stay alive longer than ammo can last. Shoot and scoot is also why gauss is played, works the same and if we had better tonnaged guass rangign from 4t+ we wuld see a lot more gauss beeing used. But gauss dont come in 10different variants allowing all chassis to utilize them properly. Thats why lasers are so prominent They come in all sorts of sizes and so most chassis find any of the lasers having utility for them.

But extended staring means window time for retaliation. Also factor in the time it takes for the projectile to hit, when lasers hit instantly. Yes, PPFLD means you can just scoot immediately, but that only works on heavy weapons such as gauss rifle or AC20s. What about the rest of the weapons such as the lower ACs you need to stare down?

And you know what else why they are prominent? They are so easy to use.

Lily from animove, on 02 January 2018 - 05:21 AM, said:

Also, there aren't good heatbuilds on lasers. show me an equivalent heatbuild for a 6xAC5 direwolf. You simply cannot.

Heat aren't everything, in fact so what if 6x AC5s are low heat? Sure it's important for sustained fire, but if your build isn't even using heat -- which is a resource you can leverage for more powerful attacks, then you're wasting it.

With good heat management, Lasers are sustainable. And while that AC5 direwolf did 30 damage, the Hellbringer did 64. And while the Direwolf is itching for you to show up again after 1.66s to put another 30 damage, the Hellbringer shows up after 4 seconds and put another 64 damage.

Lily from animove, on 02 January 2018 - 05:21 AM, said:

Why is the Dakkabear a working thing? because lasers OP? Surely not.

Meanwhile the entire Clan is OP because mostly of lasers. And why just dakka bear? What about Laser Vomit timberwolf? What about Laser Vomit Mad IIC? What about laser vomit hellbringer? What about laser vomit Ebon Jaguar? etc. etc.

Lily from animove, on 02 January 2018 - 05:21 AM, said:

it's justa lot mechs that have issues using B and M properly to make them workable. So peopel go over to alservomit. because laservomit espeically now with heavy lasers work due to slots beeing not much of an issue on all sorts of lasers. And Since people play what they are used to they often stay with lasers.

Are you sure that it's also because lasers are comparatively easier to use compare to ACs you need to lead? LBX having spread? etc. etc.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 05:06 AM, said:

But still, aren't they underperformers requiring buffs in the first place? I mean, yes, sure, there are mechs on life support. But that sounds more like them needing a buff for relevance, than keeping the balance unhealthy for them to be relevant.

As for them, remember the other mechs are ALSO gimped by the laser nerf. That means the lasers that supposedly kills dear Ice Ferret and Executioner would also take longer to kill said dear mechs. Understandably, yes, on the output, they dish less damage, but again that is more of the problem of the mech. Why would we make the over all balance unhealthy, than fringe mechs needing buffs in the first place?



And i am in the opinion that we need to increase time to kill. Yes, there are those like Dire Wolf need mobility buffs to stay relevant, but honestly, adding both would work as well.



And my baseline is the average, it's what mechs, what populations have in common. I don't want to sound like a ****, but do you know what a bell curve is?

I prefer to keep everything balanced slightly, only over performing on certain aspects I'm open for them to specialize. Of course with mechs being possible to be built for many other roles, it's probably best to keep them only slightly good at certain things.

When i look at a mech, I look at timber wolf. Not over-performing or under-performing -- sure it needs it's torso speed and yaw back prior to engine desync, but what i love about that mech is how it's just decent, you can build it with many things.

Yes, that luxury is not accessible to many other mechs, many specialize. But that doesn't mean we should just buff everything else to what said mech specializes, what about the viability of other reasonable build that can be done? Isn't that the point of the mech lab is for everyone to experiment with builds? Build as they like? (so long as they contribute), but what's the point if you just buy mechs for a specific build?

That's like buying LEGOs and having it left built exactly how the instructions said it.



Well, it doesn't feel wrong to me. You think i wouldn't be open for the Urbanmech to be nerfed to hell -- on the premise that it's OP and broken?



That's sounds more like poorly handled nerf than anything. Nerfs are fine so long as if it's warranted, but too much -- just as with anything -- is the problem. We all know how only the KDK-3 is overperforming with 4x UAC10, but both UAC10 and KDK as a series of chassis as a whole got nuked.

I get that my own proposal is a sweeping, nuke-ish nerf with the lasers, but with how it's placed right now, we're pretty sure that this is warranted.

I don't want to get personal, but really that sounds like you regretting buying a mech, that you bought because you know that it's better than the old content. Basically you riding the power creep. I get that you want to add more variations, but it just sounds like you being a proud pay-to-win user.

From a business standpoint, sure that could probably be good idea to introduce progressively OP content to keep people buying. But that wouldn't be balance, that's a scam. That's like Apple slowing down their old phones so people would buy their new one, it's basically a **** move.



Yes, and that's power creep. There's a reason why Power Creeping has a negative connotation. Such as how it obsoletes old content, in which what we see in MWO. It could end up pay to win optimize, it's exactly Purifier, or Deahstrike.

I get that we have a player base to satisfy, but we also have a game to balance. It's a free to play game. I wasn't totally against just buffing AC and other mechs, hell, the RAC2 and LGR NEEDS a god damn buff. But the problem is that you can't just keep buffing and buffing, just as you can't keep nerfing and nerfing, that's why i was still open to the ballistics buffs.

Nothing really falls out of favor or become obsoleted if you remember to always bring up the underperformers to new levels. In the end you can just keep buffing and buffing and it evens itself out, TTK gets too low? buff defense. TTK gets too high? Buff offense. Its really that simple.

As for the Spirit Bear, it was a mech that relied on brawling and mobility, brawling wasn't at all meta at the time that I got it and still isn't really. It couldn't beat an Atlas-S in a straight fight since the Atlas had much more defensive quirks compared to the none on the Spirit Bear, but the SB could at least move around quickly for a new type of gameplay similar to that of my old Executioner but with a big ballistic and SRMs instead of just CSPLs all the time. Really not seeing any pay-to-win there. It was more of an example of a mech that was at an average level being brought down to below average due to blanket nerfs that only thought to beat down a top tier mech (the KDK-3) without really worrying about the others that are affected.

Since PGI shows a track record of *always* over nerfing everything by taking everything the mech has going for it away at once I never really advocate for any nerfs around here.

The reason I look at only top performers is because those are the ones that are most studied out of the meta, we know how they pair up to the other top performers and the things below that might as well not exist in the eyes of the competitive. The average becomes exceedingly hard to find, especially when builds are brought in. Does some potato in a 1 UAC2 + LRM20 Atlas end up bringing the average down or do we just cut off the extremes?

In general the meta revolves entirely around specialists, even under perfect weapon balance it isn't ideal to run mixed builds do to not being all effective in one range bracket, having to lead for multiple weapon speeds, having to control multiple firing groups, needing different ammo for each gun, etc.

"Why would we make the over all balance unhealthy, than fringe mechs needing buffs in the first place?"
Why would we kill off the fringe mechs in the name of balance when we could have balance without killing them? I've already given my own explanations of how I would do this.

[Lily from animove]

The6thMessenger, on 02 January 2018 - 05:37 AM, said:

Yes, but lasers are notorious for it because they work well.



But extended staring means window time for retaliation. Also factor in the time it takes for the projectile to hit, when lasers hit instantly. Yes, PPFLD means you can just scoot immediately, but that only works on heavy weapons such as gauss rifle or AC20s. What about the rest of the weapons such as the lower ACs you need to stare down?

And you know what else why they are prominent? They are so easy to use.



Heat aren't everything, in fact so what if 6x AC5s are low heat? Sure it's important for sustained fire, but if your build isn't even using heat -- which is a resource you can leverage for more powerful attacks, then you're wasting it.

With good heat management, Lasers are sustainable. And while that AC5 direwolf did 30 damage, the Hellbringer did 64. And while the Direwolf is itching for you to show up again after 1.66s to put another 30 damage, the Hellbringer shows up after 4 seconds and put another 64 damage.



Meanwhile the entire Clan is OP because mostly of lasers. And why just dakka bear? What about Laser Vomit timberwolf? What about Laser Vomit Mad IIC? What about laser vomit hellbringer? What about laser vomit Ebon Jaguar? etc. etc.



Are you sure that it's also because lasers are comparatively easier to use compare to ACs you need to lead? LBX having spread? etc. etc.

if lasers were easy to use T5 wouldn't use LRM's as much. Lasers aren't easy to use properly they require skill because you need to keep them on a section or you waste heat into a irrelevant section. Especially against good opponents who know how to twist. You can't twist vs PPFLD.

Also, yes, whatbout laservomit hellbringer and laservomit mad's and such? well ebcase hbr canno utilise the existign B's well, thats why. reverse questions: why do ballistic Hunchies exist? because thats a chassis that CAN use ballistics properly. HBR's an omni with bad restriction not able to ballistic. Make the HBR a battlemech and give it 2 cockpit high mounts for ballistics, and it would spit gauss as well. The issue is that ballistic builds are niche due to how they need to be build to work properly and many chassis do not have the tonnage. hardpoint or geometric setup to utilise ballistics well.

What if we suddenly amde a 10 heat 10damage (no spread) PPC? do you think people would use lasers anymore as they currently do? probably not, all HBR's would spit this new PPC. But PPC's are stupid "pay heat for spread" weapons making them in the end a lot less efficient than needed.

buffing and nerfign tech will not make balance EVER. mechs are way to different and trying to nerf specific meta builds will nerf all emchs much harder relying ont he same wepaons but not beeing meta. Buffing weapons to help inferior mechs does generate the opposite. you suddenly end up with a new meta because some other mech can do that weapon better and probably boat it. If you want balance you need to balance on mechs but also restrict boating because some mechs cannot ever boat. And to restrict boating, restrict heat first, because it restricts alphas. And then people would in best case just use multiple wepaons for different ranges being more efficient at those ranges.

you know what, if you take a lost of all wepaons, and remove their names and name them wepaon 1 weapon 2 etc, you will suiddenly see laservomit doesn't exist, you will just see a few weapons who work well together and some who are niche. if we had 10 different ballistics from 2t till 15t (and i am not talking about MG's in here too) so every mech would find a possibility to urilise 3-4 of them at the same time once he has 3B+ hardpoints we would see them being used as well a lot more across the baord. but we don't have many B's well spread in tonnage, we just have medium heavy, heavy, superheavy, then, medium ehvay with spread, heavy with spread and superheavy with spread ballistics. and this makin them never work well in synergy generally. that just works on some builds. And with the infaltionary heatscale PGI allowed MWO to have lasers will just be a better allround wepaon.