1125 replies to this topic

[Seranov]

Anything that makes my love for Ballistics less clunky (especially Clan-side) is a-okay with me.

That said, I do feel like applying all these changes at the same time might be a bad idea without serious testing and durability increases for pretty much everyone, because improving nearly every weapon in the game is a surefire way to cut TTK significantly, which will lead to mechs feeling way more fragile. I've neither the experience nor the ability to see how all these changes would pan out just by reading them, but I can unequivocally say that buffing everything will make it easier to kill or be killed by other mechs, and that could easily make things worse instead of better.

[suffocater]

I like the ideas overall.

[Burke IV]

If you want the game to be fun again then roll it back to the last time it was fun. I cant see that happening cause of all the new stuff thats come out sinse then. I have no idea why ATMs even got put in the game and hvy lasers should have rung alarm bells aswell.

CLRMs are not fine and everybody knows it and yet the personal bias of the people making the suggestions is glossing over it. LRMs are part of the game, you cant just edit them out cause you dont like being hit by them. I dont know what to suggest to fix the CLRM5 in the current high armour game. LRMs do not have enough ammo now because of high armour values and AMS.

I cant understand why PGI charged forwards with their changes despite the crys of discontent. Too much new was introduced over too short a space of time, its not wonder there is no balance.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Seranov, on 08 February 2018 - 05:22 AM, said:

That said, I do feel like applying all these changes at the same time might be a bad idea without serious testing and durability increases for pretty much everyone, because improving nearly every weapon in the game is a surefire way to cut TTK significantly, which will lead to mechs feeling way more fragile. r.

There is already too much durability with skilltree. Increasing it even more will negate all possible weapon buffs, and be an indirect nerf to mechs which cant boat lots of weapons, i.e. mediums and lights.

[Jonathan8883]

MadBadger, on 08 February 2018 - 05:16 AM, said:

Another point, having just re-perused Bud Crue's post above. As this proposal is 'one slice of the pie', I would agree with Bud's preference that quirks (or something very similar) be used more to balance mechs and tech bases rather than less. While the quirk system is finicky it is also a very BT-universe compatible concept, with techs fiddling with and repairing mechs and various manufacturers and Houses tweaking designs over time trying to keep older mechs competitive on the battlefield.

It is much better to take a little-played chassis, or even a new variant, and balance it with inherent quirks rather than to try to adjust all weapons to be equally effective on it. It just requires quirks to be somewhat more... carefully chosen than in the past.

It also allows for better differentiation between variants on a chassis. With 'rule of 3' gone, we need more reasons to buy more than the 'meta best' version of each chassis.

I agree with this post. I would like to see more quirk buffs, not fewer quirks. Quirks are the only way mechs with bad hitboxes, insufficient hardpoints, etc., can be made usable. PGI has been too stingy handing them out for many chassis.
Sure, a great player can probably still get a 600-damage game in a Spider. That's on one very narrow end of the bell curve. For the rest of us, the Spider is useless, aside from perhaps one variant.

A review of the mobility nerf would be a good next step as well. Too many Mechs are too sluggish to be worth piloting, including supposed brawlers like the Hunchback.

Edited by Jonathan8883, 08 February 2018 - 06:01 AM.

[Tiewolf]

I definitely like most of the balance changes! Really well thought out weapon changes.

What I see critical because of the implications of this potential balance changes.
1. From the hole population mainly the top players will benefit the most and the skill gap between them and the casual players grows. (When you look at the players that where involved the perspective/hidden agenda is obvious)

2. PPC/Gauss unlinked? I don't want to get 45dmg pinpoint across the hole map from players like the ones who pushes these ideas. Sorry but no! this is not fun on the receiving end. Only top players get even better when you give em these opportunities.

3. Clan Srm's have so much more range then IS ones. That's why it is a good idea to give them a higher spread. Give clan srm the same range then IS or leave the spread like it is.

Apart from my 3 issues above I really embrace most proposed changes. Good job and kudos for your work! Keep it up!

I only hope PGI takes all or nothing because if they use their dartboard on this proposal it is screwed.

Edited by Tiewolf, 08 February 2018 - 06:18 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Tiewolf, on 08 February 2018 - 06:15 AM, said:

3. Clan Srm's have so much more range then IS ones. That's why it is a good idea to give them a higher spread. Give clan srm the same range then IS or leave the spread like it is.

go home u drunk

[Tiewolf]

Nema Nabojiv, on 08 February 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

go home u drunk

I wish I would be drunk!

[Vellron2005]

I'm not an expert on ballistics, and lasers, but I do know missiles..

Here's my take on THAT part of the balance..

1) ATMs need to be less succeptible to AMS
2) ATM's need no minimum range, instead scaled close-in damage like Clan LRMs
3) Both IS and Clan LRMs in general need to have the 45% lock-on angles restored. Dropping these down to 20% has completely destroyed the noble art of LRM bending, and has made LRM boating alot less fun.
4) Both IS and Clan LRMs need to have better tracking streangth, right now, missile tracking with all skill nodes is crap.
5) Both IS and Clan LRM's and ATM's in flight need to have an ability to lock-on to a different target if the original lock is lost. This could prevent sooo many Team Kills from un-tracked LRMs..

Edited by Vellron2005, 08 February 2018 - 06:32 AM.

[Amary]

Unsure if you included this weapon system, may have just over looked it. However the NARC has been one of the few weapons the pains me the most in this game. I believe dropping its weight down as it still has ammo would be a great fix.

[Asym]

Bombast, on 07 February 2018 - 09:23 PM, said:

What you see posted here represents a lot of players, particularly the 'dedicated' ones. While this may seem to be coming out of the left field for you, a lot of people were talked to about it, and more were kept in the loop and gave feed back over it.

So how about you don't try to represent us by saying they don't represent us. And then lets stop because we've entered an endless loop.

No. I won't stay quiet because this is the right attempt done the wrong way.... Top down never works in change management because all business comes down to culture.... Culture drives innovation up as it struggles against change: it's called adaptive friction - but, that paper hasn't been published yet.....

OK, for arguments sake, let's review the "non-story line competition" has ruined MWO theory..... There have been several forum articles on this. That e-Sports is driving MWO into "something" it isn't suppose to be and now, where's our Strategic direction? SOLARIS. Why? Because PGI believes that that's where competition really is.......in the areana....up close and personal. Not to mention a lot cheaper to sell mechs in because the battlespace is so much cheaper to work in from a programming aspect and doesn't require a game engine change....!! Micro-transactions are next and we'll start to see them soon before Solaris, you-betcha.

Anyone I know hasn't been contacted? That's about a 100 players now. Of course, we aren't "dedicated" enough because we'd represent an alternative view: so, Bombast, have at it lad and good luck with Solaris. Us "less than decicated" and, if I would guess, a Freudian slip on your part because you really wanted to say "potato", don't count, well, that's a shame because a majority of players can't all be elite and competition players....

[Sigmar Sich]

Vellron2005, on 08 February 2018 - 06:31 AM, said:

3) Both IS and Clan LRMs in general need to have the 45% lock-on angles restored.

Or, "360 targeting" skill nodes can also have +10-15 to lock-on angles. Sort of related things, may as well make this nodes useful.

Edited by Sigmar Sich, 08 February 2018 - 07:06 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Asym, on 08 February 2018 - 06:50 AM, said:

No. I won't stay quiet because this is the right attempt done the wrong way.... Top down never works in change management because all business comes down to culture.... Culture drives innovation up as it struggles against change: it's called adaptive friction - but, that paper hasn't been published yet.....

Wth are you on about?
The folks who have proposed the changes are just players. They are not a business, nor are they seeking a cultural shift to anything; just tweeting some numbers on some pretend weapons. Is the culture you are referring to like “competitive play” being a culture versus people who can’t aim being some different culture or what? What exactly is the cultural conflict here? I’m a mediocre (at best), casual player and I can see that a lot of weapons in this game just suck. Why on earth would you be a opposed to folks better at that game and more familiar with its mechanical intricacies than you or I making proposals to make those sucky weapons less sucky?

Asym, on 08 February 2018 - 06:50 AM, said:

OK, for arguments sake, let's review the "non-story line competition" has ruined MWO theory..... There have been several forum articles on this. That e-Sports is driving MWO into "something" it isn't suppose to be and now, where's our Strategic direction? SOLARIS. Why? Because PGI believes that that's where competition really is.......in the areana....up close and personal. Not to mention a lot cheaper to sell mechs in because the battlespace is so much cheaper to work in from a programming aspect and doesn't require a game engine change....!! Micro-transactions are next and we'll start to see them soon before Solaris, you-betcha.

Again, wth are you on about here? There has never been a “story-line” in MWO. At best the “story” of faction play is one where you the player “rewrite the history of the inner-sphere”; so even here the story is that which you create. MWO is an arena shooter with stompy robots, and it has always been an arena shooter with stompy robots. Is there some other game that you are complaining about here? Is your beef with the fact that PGI doesn’t really care about lore? If the later, what has that got to do with the efforts a group of players are putting forth regarding making weapons more fun to play?

Asym, on 08 February 2018 - 06:50 AM, said:

Anyone I know hasn't been contacted? That's about a 100 players now. Of course, we aren't "dedicated" enough because we'd represent an alternative view: so, Bombast, have at it lad and good luck with Solaris. Us "less than decicated" and, if I would guess, a Freudian slip on your part because you really wanted to say "potato", don't count, well, that's a shame because a majority of players can't all be elite and competition players....

I’m sure Bombast will enjoy Solaris. Um, I’m a little familiar with Freudian slips...and now I am finally at the end of your post intrigued: I for one would find your subconscious feelings toward potatoes and dedication to be fascinating. Please express your feelings here, we won’t judge.

Edited by Bud Crue, 08 February 2018 - 07:08 AM.

[Crazyeyes244]

Only thing I will say, please don't roll back the PPC+gauss ghost heat... 2ppc1gauss meta back in the old days was not fun, no matter how you slice it.

[Bombast]

Asym, on 08 February 2018 - 06:50 AM, said:

Spoiler

No. I won't stay quiet because this is the right attempt done the wrong way.... Top down never works in change management because all business comes down to culture.... Culture drives innovation up as it struggles against change: it's called adaptive friction - but, that paper hasn't been published yet.....

OK, for arguments sake, let's review the "non-story line competition" has ruined MWO theory..... There have been several forum articles on this. That e-Sports is driving MWO into "something" it isn't suppose to be and now, where's our Strategic direction? SOLARIS. Why? Because PGI believes that that's where competition really is.......in the areana....up close and personal. Not to mention a lot cheaper to sell mechs in because the battlespace is so much cheaper to work in from a programming aspect and doesn't require a game engine change....!! Micro-transactions are next and we'll start to see them soon before Solaris, you-betcha.

You seem to have a lot of non-balance related issues you want to bring up. Please start a new thread and don't derail this one.

Quote

Anyone I know hasn't been contacted? That's about a 100 players now. Of course, we aren't "dedicated" enough because we'd represent an alternative view: so, Bombast, have at it lad and good luck with Solaris. Us "less than decicated" and, if I would guess, a Freudian slip on your part because you really wanted to say "potato", don't count, well, that's a shame because a majority of players can't all be elite and competition players....

I'm not a competitive or elite player, I never asked, nor wanted, Solaris, and that's obviously a spelling error. The fact I make them 5+ times a post should have been the clue.

Bud Crue, on 08 February 2018 - 07:08 AM, said:

I’m sure Bombast will enjoy Solaris.

I doubt it. The concept isn't very attractive to me. For a little bit I thought it may be an interesting distraction, something to mess around with from time to time, but then I did a few practice 1v1 rounds and remembered Flamers are a thing. I have zero interest in MechLabbing builds entirely around countering a 0.5/1 ton weapon system.

Edited by Bombast, 08 February 2018 - 07:20 AM.

[lazorbeamz]

More like a 0.001% of community-driven balance update.

[R Valentine]

Any change to clan laser vomit has to include reducing medium laser GH to 5. 6 is just way too good. 6 cERML is 42 damage, which is 12 more than IS. 12! That's more than 2 IS ERML, which is just complete crap. 5 would still do more damage than 6 IS ML, but not by the current ridiculous amount that it is.

[metallio]

1) LRMs
a- Increase velocity...a lot. Decide on something, but 50% sounds good.
b- Make line of sight LRMs reduce spread significantly, out of line of sight increase spread significantly.

2) ATMs
a- Increase velocity, as above.
b- Eliminate damage dead zone. Make them 1 damage in this range, fine, but they already spread far worse than SRMs so they aren't OP at short range anyway.

3) SRM2. Reduce cooldown.

4) Light gauss. Throw away TT values. 3 ton, 3 damage, 3 crit slot. That's a "light" weapon for you.

5) RACs. Increase damage. These should be the "don't stare at them" weapons, period. Keep the spread and reduce range if necessary. I'd like to remove the jam function and just make the heat increase like flamers, but w/e.

6) Keep ghost heat the same for Gauss/PPC.

[ROSS-128]

Asym, the reason you're ignored in a balance discussion is because you blatantly don't want balance at all. Why should we ask someone who doesn't want balance how to balance?

For example:

Asym, on 07 February 2018 - 09:21 PM, said:

Good try but you'll never find "balance" because balance isn't about what MW is about. It's about struggle between two completely different cultures fighting over the same space. It's the "Cold War" storyline and balance has nothing to do with it because there wasn't balance in the first place. Good grief. What we should be asking PGI to do is de-nerf everything and start over. Make all weapons as deadly as they were designed to be and call it a day....

No.

We all know quite well what "as deadly as they were designed to be" means. At least, any of us familiar with the TT stats and how horribly lopsided they were do.

This isn't "mighty Clan Warrior Asym drives dirty Inner Sphere rabble before him with the might of his superior tech". If you want to be blatantly OP, play a singleplayer game.

[H I A S]

Khobai, on 07 February 2018 - 06:17 PM, said:

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.

Dont buff nubtubes. Change their mechanic. The same for Streaks.

Edited by H I A S, 08 February 2018 - 08:42 AM.