Jump to content

A Community-Driven Balance Update


1125 replies to this topic

#1 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,557 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM

Clarification: we do not intend to have this revised in time for Paul's podcast. Just so you know. We're going to take as much as one week to soak in the feedback, and then we'll post a revised version.





By now you’ve probably heard about MechTheDane’s video, “Unfunning of MWO”. If you haven’t, go check it out now because it has been the centerpiece of a large community push over the past week to incite positive changes in MWO.

But Dane isn’t the only that was fired up after RJBass' interview with Chris Lowrey and wanted to “get something going.” Community member Bear Claw decided to pull together a crew of players to draft up a list of weapon balance changes to improve the game and have them forwarded to PGI. This has already been cleared with Paul Inouye at PGI. I will list who all is involved at the end of this post.



SO WHAT IS GOING ON?

We have drafted up weapon balance changes to recommend directly to PGI. You can read them here on the follow document, or if you like you can directly peruse our massive spreadsheet:

- Full list of changes
- Spreadsheet form for nerds

WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK. We have discussed every single weapon in the game, and almost every weapon has been modified in some way or another through our combined efforts. Not every change is going to make the cut and be forwarded to PGI. We want to hear what YOU ALL have to say, make modifications to our proposal, and cut down and simplify where necessary. So please, if weapon balance is important to you, take the time to dig in and offer your opinions.

It’s important that we as a community all get on the same page, and this can be our jumping point. If we all poll our effort together, we can whittle our proposal down to something we can all agree on. We're here to work together and focus our feedback so that we can help PGI succeed and make this game more fun for everybody. If we can't agree on what we want, how do we expect PGI to give us what we're asking for? If this effort is successful, we can hope to maintain an open dialogue with PGI in improving topics beyond just weapon balancing.




And do remember that this is concerning weapon balance only, which is only a single slice of the pie. There are other things that should probably be addressed by PGI:

- Mech quirks
- Mech mobility
- Overbearing consumables
- Skill Tree as a whole (ie., are enough people unhappy to justify significant changes?)
- New player experience (hey, it’s still not good)
- Matchmaking (the PSR system is fundamentally broken as it stands)

Any of the above could be topics for a dedicated community effort to provide direct feedback to PGI on how they should be handled. But for now, ONE THING AT A TIME. First thing is weapon balance only.
So on that topic, FLY MY PRETTIES. LET LOOSE YOUR FEEDBACK.






Here are the people who were involved with drafting these balance changes and will be reviewing your feedback:

Major contributions from:
- Navid A1
- Metachanic
- Tarogato

Additional input from:
- Bows3r
- Fragosaurus Rex
- Bear Claw

Edited by Tarogato, 08 February 2018 - 07:18 AM.


#2 Navid A1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • 4,931 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:19 PM

View PostTarogato, on 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:


And do remember that this is concerning weapon balance only, which is only a single slice of the pie. There are other things that should probably be addressed by PGI:

- Mech quirks
- Mech mobility
- Overbearing consumables
- Skill Tree as a whole (ie., are enough people unhappy to justify significant changes?)
- New player experience (hey, it’s still not good)
- Matchmaking (the PSR system is fundamentally broken as it stands)



Pay attention to this.

The proposed changes only focus on weapon balance. Other changes will have their own analysis and change suggestions.

Edited by Navid A1, 07 February 2018 - 05:20 PM.


#3 Novakaine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,703 posts
  • LocationThe Republic of Texas

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:29 PM

Any "IS centric players in that group?
Because if it's all Clankers and Mercs the result will be dubious at best.
Oh and this...."The state of missiles is probably the best among weapon types."
Seriously no.
And can you squeeze all this on twitter because otherwise PGI wont even notice.
The don't even bother with their own forums.

Edited by Novakaine, 07 February 2018 - 05:34 PM.


#4 Navid A1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • 4,931 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:35 PM

View PostNovakaine, on 07 February 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

Any "IS centric players in that group?
Because if it's all Clankers and Mercs the result will be dubious at best.
And can you squeeze all this on twitter because otherwise PGI wont even notice.
The don't even bother with their own forums.

IS centric and Clan centric are both negative. Those changes focus on balance. You may notice IS weapons getting a bump in most areas
(i know you are an LRM fan... Posted Image ... for example, IS-LRMs got some love there. And some other proposed changes to LRMs that make them better)

Also... good amount of effort has been made to put this up on as many channels as possible.
There has been also some interest and green lights from PGI for this.

#5 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:39 PM

Hey Tarogato

Could you please add in your open letter about making the RAC2 specifically more powerful, and have the RACs fixed shooting duration than what we have today? That unreliability is just so god damn stupid.

Why i ever use LB10X over AC10 is precisely because it's -1 ton and -1 slot of AC10, which is not the case with the LB20X, so i wouldn't put up with it. Not with it's spread damage, screw it's crits and better velocity.

I notice that the LGR didn't have damage buff -- it should. At it's current iteration, It's just so god damn anemic.

Also, make the Clan Pulse Lasers go towards better egronomics, basically we pay for 1 more ton by being easier to use than the IS pulse lasers doing better damage -- the C-MPL is the perfect iteration of clan pulse laser i felt so far, it would do the C-SPL and C-LPL well too.

That is 5 damage for C-SPL which is the same for the C-ERSL, but will have better heat, duration and cooldown and the current lower range as per the norm. Simmilarly the C-LPL would do just 11 damage same as C-ERLL, but will have better heat, duration and cooldown, and it's currently lower range.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 February 2018 - 05:49 PM.


#6 Nema Nabojiv

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,783 posts
  • LocationUA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:41 PM

Jesus! Five thousand with more than 200 matches per month! That's fuckіng bad.

#7 Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,806 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:43 PM

View PostNovakaine, on 07 February 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

Any "IS centric players in that group?
Because if it's all Clankers and Mercs the result will be dubious at best.
And can you squeeze all this on twitter because otherwise PGI wont even notice.
The don't even bother with their own forums.


Would probably recommend that no loyalists discuss weapon balance and only players who actually use both side's weapons frequently to give their opinions on the balance, otherwise its flatly biased.


Overall some good changes, I'm a bit torn on the cooldown increases of UACs, but the jam reductions seem good enough to more than balance it out and it opens up some interesting choices there rather than UAC>AC, I'll say its pretty good.

Recommendations:

-maybe the CLPL should go back to 13 damage per shot since it also gets its range decreased and the ISLPL gets boosted back to its prenerf 11 damage.

-lower SNPPC heat to about 7.5, should be lower than the regular PPC since it has shorter range and focuses on brawling, can't really brawl well when you're overheating.

-Give CERPPC some sort of buff, after the recent patch moving it down to 5 second cooldowns while the IS ERPPC is still on 4 seconds while generating less heat per shot and traveling faster ontop of IS having massive quirks for PPCs, the clans are at a lower dps per ton ratio already if we aren't counting the 5 waste damage, lowering ISERPPCs heat while they are already superior seems kinda off. Would maybe just decrease CERPPC cooldown back down to 4 or 4.5, maybe even back to 4 so that CERPPC runs much hotter than the IS ERPPC and has lower velocity but is lighter and smaller while both still have the same pin point DPS. Could honestly just throw out the 5 waste damage entirely or convert the PPC to just deal 12.5 damage pinpoint.

#8 Valdarion Silarius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 1,672 posts
  • LocationWubbing and dakkaing everyone in best jellyfish mech

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:45 PM

I briefly looked over the list of changes and I like what I see except for one thing. I don't believe that Clan Large Pulse Lasers should get any more nerfs than what they have in game. The whole idea of cLPL's being a DPS weapon as opposed to a high damage, long reaching but high heat generating weapon should stay as it is. Maximum range should be at 850m and optimal ranges should be at 700m. Everything else I'm ok with on this list, and I am definitely in support of the buffs for both IS and Clan small lasers/spl's.

#9 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:05 PM

Looking through all the changes in detail, there is not a lot I disagree with and what I do - I will not say a word on for the greater, farken, good.

Some of the usual Clan Apoligists around here need to do the same and do not derail this initiative with bottom of the barrel balance commentary or comments about things you have been proven many times, to not understand. You do not balance from the bottom, ever. Not being rude either, but this stuff needs to be fixed and it won't if it continues.

That said the issue here is going to be PGI... The big risk of them potentially picking/choosing some of the balance changes and this won't actually work as all changes, to me, feel as like they are quite synonymous and work in conjuction with each other.

Cherry picking or dart-boarding from that sheet will potentially be more dangerous than doing nothing. So hopefully the power @ PGI can understand and realise this.

And it's not about saying they are doing a bad job, it's just the direction (most of us feel) has been wrong and these proposed changes set the ship back on course.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 07 February 2018 - 06:06 PM.


#10 NUMBERZero1032

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 148 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:12 PM

I think this list looks good and does a pretty good job of adjusting the meta of the game. It opens up for more build diversity and improves on the current stagnation.The IS LPL buff is something that I would look forward to, and I would ESPECIALLY like to see the IS LBX20 be 10 critical slots instead of 11. There is a lore build King Crab that has LBX20's in the arm. It upsets me that I can't make that King Crab happen in MWO. Seems doubly ridiculous that Clans can do it no problem.

#11 ROSS-128

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 396 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:13 PM

Definitely a lot to be nervous about, seems like a lot of time PGI is like one of those evil genies that will grant your wish, but in the worst possible way.

Be very, very careful with your wording.

#12 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:17 PM

The missile buffs are kindve weak.


IS-LRMs need more than a heat buff.

LRMs on both sides need a velocity increase. Theyre supposed to be LONG RANGE missiles. With range that rivals ERLL. They need to be effective past 500m.


And ATMs should be more effective under 120m than CLRMs.

ATMs should have damage dropoff under 120m. And maybe change their damage profile to 2.5/2/1.5 instead of 3/2/1 because ATMs are way too strong at short range and not strong enough at long range.

ATMs need more missile health too. AMS chews them up because of the low missile counts.


And actually damage deadzones on all weapons should be removed and replaced with damage dropoff. So IS-LRMs, ATMs, PPCs, etc... should all have damage dropoff instead of damage deadzones.

Edited by Khobai, 07 February 2018 - 07:23 PM.


#13 Angus McFife VI

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 433 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:19 PM

ALL ATLASES NEED ARMOR BUFFS, THE BOARS HEAD, S AND D-DC DO NOT HAVE ARMOR QUIRKS

https://mwomercs.com...ks/page__st__20

The Atlas K, D and RS all have armor quirks now they are USABLE and somewhat viable. Please help the other Atlases too. Also highlanders.

#14 Metachanic

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 45 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:19 PM

For the record, all of the people who worked on this proposal are watching this thread and recording suggestions. We will be discussing all the feedback that seems to gain some steam or raises an interesting point.

#15 Lcarowan

    Rookie

  • 5 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:19 PM

The best part about these suggestions is that just about everything gets a buff, which feels a lot better to players (speaking for myself at least) than nerfs. Thanks to all of the folks who have worked on putting together this plan of action for PGI to hopefully consider and implement.

#16 panzer1b

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:21 PM

I may not be the best player in this game by a longshot, but i am reasonably good at the game and i think i can at least add my generic comments with regards to the current game balance. Also, while i am clan loyalist, i do play both factions in QP and think im more then capable of offering unbiased results when it comes to being on the giving and receiving end of various weapons and how well they work.

Right now, laser based weapons (often combined with gauss) are the most dominant in quick play because of 2 reasons. They are extremely easy to use due to hitscan nature and there are really only 2 counters to lasers, being out of LOS, or being out of the laser's range. Second, the current default heat capacity on many clan mechs allows said mech to fire upwards of ~150 total damage over the course of ~2 alfa strikes with lasers alone, sometimes even more before heat becomes a concern. This is enough for a skilled player to remove a mech's side torso with decent consistency if they are patient and time the shots correctly. While loosing a side torso is only game-over for IS XL engines (which are only common on some fast mediums and most lights), it is a HUGE detriment to any mechs combat performance and thus half a mech is rarely a big deal to finish off (only exception are a handful of deadside mechs). In other words, lasers do not have a DPS issue unless you are trying to engage multiple targets in quick succession, and the damage lasers deal is extremely efficient at removing enemies from the battlefield.

Autocannons are in a bit of a mixed spot right now. They work insanely well on a select few mechs that can bring 3-4 of the mid range variety (5 or 10 class), simply due to the raw volume of fire they can put down (bad luck aside, a MCII-B with 2 5s and 2 10s can dump like 300 damage downstream in a few seconds). On the flip side, most mechs with 1-2 autocannons are very weak right now as they lack the ability to deliver any meaningful damage to targets that do not remain exposed for a long time. To drop assault's ST with a double AC-5 right now requires over 20 seconds of continuous fire, and that assumes everything hits that ST and its in optimal range. Its simply impossible to deal any workable damage to good players since they will not let you hit 1 component every time, and they will shoot back while you cant twist their damage away.

UAC-20s are also in a horrible spot right now, primarily due to the insanely punishing jam duration on a weapon that gets used at ranges where disengaging isnt really possible. Essentially, if it jams, you die, it it doesnt jam, you do stupid amounts of damage and probably kill 2-3 targets before you are taken down. Its just so louck dependent its really not a fun weapon to play with, and while every UAC can jam, at least the longer ranged models give you the opportunity to disengage when positioned well and generally have lower jam timers and are present in larger quantities cutting down the issues of a single one jamming leaving you helpless.

LBXs need MASSIVE boosts to either crit rate (if they actually evicerated internals then theyd be a good choice for finishing), or need to have drastically higher DPS compared to normal cannons.

Missiles are in a very sad state right now (at least from my experience), since they lack sustained DPS (they are very hot, especially SRM-2s), spread damage like crazy at normal ranges, and are also ammo hungry. Basically, if you want DPS, you pick ballistics, and if you want to single exposure trade, you pick lasers (with optional gauss). The ONLY 2 uses missiles have is to track fast movers that are hard or impossible to hit with normal direct fire, or to obtain workable alfa strike if you are extremely low on tonnage and dont have energy hardpoints available. Even then, the maximum practical alfa strike on a SRM boat is nothing compared to lasers, and they will be evicerated by any ballistic boat. Then you consider that the ranges work against missiles, being unable to do ANY damage past 300m is a huge problem for anything but the fastest of mechs (which are probably still better off using lasers).

LRMs get special mention, since i feel that LRMs in the current game are trash, as in even polar highlands with a narc still takes a lance of LRM boats 3-4 volleys to actually kill a single mech that is twisting teh damage properly. That is so inefficient in both time taken to kill and damage required to kill that that lance is almost entirely better off bringing direct fire and 1 shotting said narced mech with combined alfa strikes.

Aside from that, i actually feel that is ballistics were buffed a tad, we would see them return as a viable choice alongside lasers. Ghost heat for gauss+PPC also needs to be upped to 3, so that anything short of HGRs can trade against long burning laser weapons instead of doing insignificant damage (even 30 PPFLD is gonna get outtraded by most laser mechs that are paying attention and fire the instant target is in sight). If the PPFLD goes to ~40-45 we start to actually get in the spot where lasers still win in raw damage, but PPFLD has the ability to be used against it when poptarting or whatnot.

Ohh, and i really like your proposed changes to ERMLs and HLLs, its not enough of a nerf that will screw over clan mechs entirely in the alfa strike dept, but itll bring them a bit more in line with IS and force players to start sacrificing sustained DPS by bringing more lasers to keep their old alfas, or it will make them trade a bit more like IS. I do feel that it may be needed to improve cERML heat eff IF the IS LPL gets a buff back to 11 dmg, but it doesnt need to be much. Thing is, IS LPLs are still stupidly powerul even at this point, people just dont like to bring them as it forces a mobility sacrifice in engine rating. That said, i have a warhammer with 3 LPL and 4 ERML and it will win trades against almost any clan mech due to the LPL damage being hitscan PPFLD (0.5s duration may as well be instant as noone has that good reflexes). I do want IS lasers to get a bit better (especially the cooldown on the regular ML), but i actually think that bringing the LPL up to 11 smg without nerfing its DPS AND its heat efficiency will push that over the top (but it defenetely can use a teeny buff since it weighs a whole 2 tons more then the alternative LL).

Edited by panzer1b, 07 February 2018 - 06:30 PM.


#17 ROSS-128

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 396 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:23 PM

Clan AC/5 has a typo on it: 80 ammo/t with 1 projectile per burst is 400 damage, not 200. Looks like a simple case of the ammo calculation not accounting for the change in burst size.

Based on the opening statement, I'm assuming either the intended ammo count is 40 or the intended burst size is 2.

#18 Metachanic

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 45 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:24 PM

Thanks for the detailed feedback, Panzer. We'll have a closer look at some of those points, missiles especially.

EDIT: Ross-128, we're looking at 1-projectile CAC5s. 1 projectile at 5 damage apiece times 40 rounds per ton equals 200 damage per ton. It's correct on the spreadsheet, but you're right, I had the wrong value on the summary. Thank you.

Edited by Metachanic, 07 February 2018 - 06:28 PM.


#19 Angus McFife VI

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 433 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:24 PM

View Postpanzer1b, on 07 February 2018 - 06:21 PM, said:

UAC-20s are also in a horrible spot right now, primarily due to the insanely punishing jam duration on a weapon that gets used at ranges where disengaging isnt really possible. Essentially, if it jams, you die, it it doesnt jam, you do stupid amounts of damage and probably kill 2-3 targets before you are taken down. Its just so louck dependent its really not a fun weapon to play with, and while every UAC can jam, at least the longer ranged models give you the opportunity to disengage when positioned well and generally have lower jam timers and are present in larger quantities cutting down the issues of a single one jamming leaving you helpless.


I actually like IS UAC/20's, back up weapons hold out while it's jammed, and when it's unjammed the burst fire makes it hard to go on a insta-killing rampage.

#20 Athom83

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 2,529 posts
  • LocationTFS Aurora, 1000km up.

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:51 PM

First off; There are several mistakes in the spreadsheet using new proposed statistics in place of the current statistics. Also, might want to separate DPS from raw damage output for the few weapons that use DPS instead of "damage". Secondly; There is a little bit of contradictory language in the proposal itself, so might want to proofread just a little.

To the changes themselves; Agreeable for the most part. There are some I see as iffy, like the changes to medium lasers and the IS Ultra10 (specifically this one, from my experience one of the weakest big ballistic weapons in the game). I personally would bump IS Streak range up a bit and increase RAC DPS (but keeping spread if not increasing it). Also, really should decrease the time between Ultra AC shells in a volley (meaning the burst itself happens in a shorter time) especially for both Ultra 20s.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users