1125 replies to this topic

[JohnnyWayne]

Regarding ghost heat changes for PPC/Gauss.

I don't know. PPFLD was a problem for a long time, yet the marauder IIC lived mainly by it. What remains is the scorch as bawler and the laser one, any other one is quite dead.

I think ghost heat rules should be mech dependant in some cases, such as this one. Free the MADIIC!

[BoldricKent]

I like the most of suggested changes, blunting the edge of laser domination.
But im opposed to ultra cannons equality, while the idea of equal shell numbers is just, retaining same cool-down/heat
across the board is direct nerf to IS line, since we pay for ultra mode in tonnage and crits compered to normal AC , while on Clan side all same caliber AC have same tonnage, which is quite different from IS- we are getting back to Gauss 3 ton/1-2 crits difference for the same stats weapon ( ultra10, ultra 20). And investment in tonnage/crit hungry weapons had been harder for IS
from a start, simply for Clans cheaper upgrades (7 crits) and better weapon payload potential. I can agree that Omins are more limited in latter but with a lot clan battlemech (which keep all of clan tech advance), ball had rolled off...

[Battlemaster56]

I read over this a couple of times during work, so I think I want to say most of this stuff I'm ok with most of the things on here but I have few nit picks and questions.

I'll start off with energy since it's the most prevalent weapon right now.

-For micro's I agree buffing their ghost heat is good, but I wouldn't go far as 12 but 10 is nice and still have enough firepower to hurt their targets.
-Explain why HSL need the .5 damage boost? I find it kinda pointless as they're still high damage low tonnage weapons, and already balance in itself.

-HML I don't see them deserving a damage reduction, the trade for their range and burn time for the damage they deal is not worth picking up a good portion of the time when other lasers within the bracket can output more damage without waiting on long CD's and cooling that's holding this weapon back.

-IS and Clan Large Pulse lasers I dunno how to feel about these two as they were both strong in their own roles, I can't really input much on it but I wouldn't just buff damage on LPL if the duration is currently what it is, and I see CLPL just need a max range reduction around 15-20% at best.

-Snubs would benefit more if it's heat is reduce to 8 instead of vanilla ppc, and instead give 9 heat to the vanilla instead.

Quick little question have the though of buffing IS Lasers damage up by 1 to match their current damage of their pulse laser cousin will be a goods idea? So far I don't see any problems of doing something like this and help IS bring out more raw damage on the board especially against ER medium combos the clans dominating with.

Ballastics

Only a few nit picks here.

-Clan "AC"'s the 5 is clearly superior to the IS and would go out to say have it shoot 2 projectiles instead of one it need some type of drawback.

-Rotaries I would rather yal focus on making it jam when the bar completely fills in so their a skill on micro managing your bar in a fight, and having 0 spread I really can't see how good that be having a high dps weapon firing pinpoint accurately at location will be healthy, and I'll say keep spread just not as insane as it is right now.

Guass PPC combo

I'm gonna be blunt the GH linkage need to go away, it was completely unnecessary murder upon the combo, when lasers where making a huge comeback, if it maybe keep the current heat values on ERPPC's and raise the CD so they won't fire as much in a span of time, and the build won't undermine lasers or other builds.

So far these my nitpicks for mostly a good suggestion for weapon balance.

[H I A S]

meteorol, on 08 February 2018 - 01:21 AM, said:

Weapons critting out way too fast (not just GRs, but everything) and totally randomly at the rate they do is something that should be adressed anyway, imo. The crit system is not fun and never was fun, even without taking the current MG boating into account.

Full agree.

Quote

This combo has a crazy strong hate for it among the brown sea and probably won't be allowed to the full extent for that reason alone.

Because PGI is listening to all the sore loosers.

The6thMessenger, on 08 February 2018 - 01:30 AM, said:

Also one more thing.

No to those partial rollback of Gauss-PPC link. Jesus, no more of this cancerous long-range. We don't need any more 2x Gauss + PPC night-Gyr, Timber-Wolf, MAD-IIC-D.

You see?

Edited by H I A S, 08 February 2018 - 09:03 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

The Lighthouse, on 08 February 2018 - 12:07 AM, said:

You guys cannot talk about weapon balance, without talking about IS vs Clan engine and heatsinks, as well as endo/ferro upgrades.

Seriously.

Uhh of course you can.

We had IS mechs being stronger without making the engines and heatsinks balanced, thus it is easily possible. Stop trying to stop the fun train.

Jesus, lots of you are pointing out that its not perfect. Well guess what. It's way better than what we have now. Trying to fix every little thing is just going to lead to this going nowhere.

[Gas Guzzler]

The6thMessenger, on 08 February 2018 - 01:30 AM, said:

Also one more thing.

No to those partial rollback of Gauss-PPC link. Jesus, no more of this cancerous long-range. We don't need any more 2x Gauss + PPC night-Gyr, Timber-Wolf, MAD-IIC-D.

Are you kidding me?

Let's just put the Night Gyr to the side for a second since its obvious it violates the safespace of the underhive. I completely disagree, it was already balanced by the time they linked the ghost heat, but some people just can't grasp that for some reason.

What the hell is wrong with a 2 ER PPC - Gauss Timber Wolf? You are worried about a 35 damage alpha from a 75 ton mech when we have 65 ton mechs running around with literally double the firepower? Yes its DoT, but 35+35 to adjacent components is STILL better than 35 to one.

[Battlemaster56]

Gas Guzzler, on 08 February 2018 - 09:08 AM, said:

What the hell is wrong with a 2 ER PPC - Gauss Timber Wolf? You are worried about a 35 damage alpha from a 75 ton mech when we have 65 ton mechs running around with literally double the firepower? Yes its DoT, but 35+35 to adjacent components is STILL better than 35 to one.

Because it hurt's thoses who stare for hours un-end and don't grasp the concept of push from cover to cover to kill said mech, or just generally just take to many shots in one match and decided this weapon combo have to die horribly.

[Tarogato]

Hey all, I'm just posting in here to let you know... that I haven't read anything in this thread yet. But I'll reply to as many comments in here as I can starting in the next 12 hours, and definitely read every single one before we move forward with this and make a revision. I've just been chasing the tail on the reddit feedback and private messages so far. You guys here aren't forgotten. =]


Ah screw it, first page here we go.

Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood, on 07 February 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

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.

Novakaine, 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.

I can't honestly speak for the others, but I can at least relate my own position.

I'm a competitive player which means I naturally seek out the mechs and loadouts that allow me to perform consistently at my best. That isn't to say I only play serious meta mechs all the time, I do also branch out to loony mechs and loadouts from time to time and I'm very fond of the lore behind this game. As part of a competitive unit I play the mechs that my team requires of me to win our matches. We've found that it's usually been clan mechs. Also, my Mechwarrior experience started with Mechwarrior 2 when I was a kid, so I have a long-standing hard-on for clans. But I've been in an IS-loyalist unit for four years and I've not played much FP from the clan side. So I'm sorta sympathetic to both sides.

The6thMessenger, on 07 February 2018 - 05:39 PM, said:

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.

As I've replied to you on reddit, I know you're looking for a RAC rework, but I don't want to propose major reworks. Just value tweaks. We decided that major contributing factors to RACs being weak are their artificial spread multiplier, their heat, and their low velocity. If we truly want a rework for how RACs behave in terms of their jam behaviour, we'll have to save that for another time.

Quote

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'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say, it's a little broken up. You're saying you never use AC10 because LB10 is smaller/lighter, but you'd never use LB20 because it's not smaller/lighter than AC20?

Quote

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

Mixed reports on this. Lot of people think it's great after PGI's last buff. But still lot of people saying it's bad. It's definitely noted on our docket as a popular opinion. Might get a damage buff for the next round.

Quote

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.

Exactly what do you mean by "egronomic" in this game? I actually have no idea what you're requesting. Except for the exact numbers you want. Well, I can't tell if you're criticizing them or suggesting them. Because cSPL is already proposed to 5 damage, ... are you saying you like the pulses dealing the same alpha damage as the ERs, and you want that done across all pulses in the game (or just clan)?

Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood, on 07 February 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

-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.

cLPL was basically the best weapon in the game when it used to deal 13 damage. Yeah, it did have a lot of range, but it was paired with cERML at least 90% of the time so its engagement range was dictated more by the base-400m of the cERML. Maybe we do need to readdress the clan larges family, but I don't think cLPL will go to 13 damage again.

There is a reason that we made the standard PPC as the coldest in the PPC family. The Snub is a short range brawling weapon, yes, but it's a ton and a crit less, and it has no minimum range. For those multiple advantages it pays the price of being hotter than a standard PPC. But really, we are buffing the heat on the SNPPC. It just happens that we are buffing the standard PPC more because we feel that it is presently a weaker option that doesn't fill any bonafide niche, it is surrounded on both sides by other PPCs that just PPC better. It has a minRange problem, it doesn't have the highest velocity, it doesn't have the highest range, it can only fire 20 damage as a midrange alpha, so we felt it needed the most help to be viable. We're not convinced our changes are enough to make the PPC viable immediately, but they're a step in the right direction we think.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

cERPPC maybe deserves a velocity buff if anything, is the feedback I'm mostly getting I think. We don't want to buff its cooldown because that makes it too good at brawly burst DPS - it needs to be vulnerable in short fast engagements, otherwise it will need to be balanced around those types of engagements, rather than its proper niche which we feel is longer range. Would you be happy with a velocity buff? I'll put it on the docket, no guarantee it will make it past discussion though.

Arnold The Governator, on 07 February 2018 - 05:45 PM, said:

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.

Actually, the cLPL got buffs. It would be 18% more heat efficient, dealing the same damage, with a slightly shorter duration. We trimmed its long range capability because we felt that it did long range too well and it seemed like that was outside its intended niche as a pulse laser and also got in the way of the cERLL. It's actually possible we may have made it too strong... I'm still not happy with all the changes in the large laser families yet...

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

IS-LRMs need more than a heat buff.

Yes, yes they probably do. But this is just one tiny step to bring them (slightly) closer to what Clans can do with the same tonnage and hardpoints. Plus, I'll admit I'm kinda scared of enciting lurmageddon in the lower tiers if we do any blanket LRM buffs.

Quote

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.

I'm inclined to agree myself about the min range, but I'm getting reports from very respectable pilots that ATMs are already very strong in their shortest range bracket. If anything... the nerf to ATM tracking strength might get nixed. I would very much like to up the health on ATM missiles, but I don't know if it's possible. It's a question for Paul I suppose. I've added it to the docket.

Quote

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.

I like this idea. I dunno if it will make it through, but I'll give it a go. Thanks for reminding me about it.

panzer1b, on 07 February 2018 - 06:21 PM, said:

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).

Thank you, almost everything you've said just corroborates what we already feel.

Except a few things. Well, just LRMs I guess. Yes LRMs are usually trash right now, but sometimes they are outrageously overpowered (actually, I wouldn't call them overpowered, I would call them anti-fun). I really can't advocate just straight up buffing LRMs, because who knows what will happen in the lower tiers where people are slow to adapt and have more chaotic playstyles. I think we're in need for a complete rework of LRMs, but now is not the time to go through with such a complicated proposal. Just sticking to simple stuff right now, and an IS LRM heat slight buff to bring towards clans is about all we were willing to risk on this weapon system at this time.

GaussPPC - it might not make it. Way too many people are flat out against this change, as in hyperbolic "GaussPPC 45-damage alphas is the thing that kills this game and makes it unfun."

I think they're all wrong.

But I can't just say that and ignore them. So probably the GaussPPC ghost heat is going to stay the way it is in the game now - not allowed. No promises, but it's looking that way.

Athom83, on 07 February 2018 - 06:51 PM, said:

First off; There are several mistakes in the spreadsheet using new proposed statistics in place of the current statistics.

Hrmmm, clarify?

Quote

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.

Not sure what you mean. Yes, for RateOfFire weapons show their "TotalDamage" as being their damage per second, but the calculations are correct. And the DPS is actually a better analogue to alpha damage for these weapons when you look at them next to other non-RoF weapons.

Unless you're reading the doc. I haven't proofread the doc myself, and it will be better for the revision next week. =]

Quote

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.

Medium lasers have been reverted to their previous state as of ... what was it May 2017? They were in a pretty good place back then, we're just going back to those values, because we thought PGI's cooldown nerf (in june?) was unnecessary

IS UAC10... yeah, it might need a heat buff. Added this to the list for review.

Buff IS Streak range to match clans... I don't see why not. Added to list.

RAC DPS... well, we kinda decided that the spread that RACs have is their biggest problem. Most people don't realise that RACs even have spread, but it's significant. The reduction of this spread, combined with improved velocity and heat, could mean that RACs are strong. No clue, though, so I don't wanna risk pushing it. Their DPS is already crazy, it's just a matter of applying it to enemy components.

Cannot decrease the delay between shells in UACs. That is a limitation of the game engine. 0.11s VolleyDelay is set in stone.










Whew, first page done. For now.

[WhineyThePoo]

Dont be afraid to nerf things! If you only balance by buffing sooner or later all weapons will have 100 dmg, be pinpoint, hitscan, 0 heat and half a second cooldown.

On a sidenote. Clam gauss and mgs probably need looking at, they have 0 downsides but are smaller/lighter than their is counterpart.

[R Valentine]

And why, OH WHY, was an IS XL engine buff not included in this document? The single largest contributor to IS vs. Clan imbalance bar none, yet once again it's gone completely unmentioned. Remove IS XL side torso death FOREVER. Kill it with fire. Burn it. Throw acid on it. Urinate on the ashes. Ensure that no company will ever be stupid enough to attempt such a feat again.

[phoboskomboa]

I agree with most of this. Light gauss needs more than just extreme range, though. Either increase damage to 10, or remove charge up completely while increasing cooldown.

The purview of the light gauss should be an option on lighter mechs that can't quite take a standard. It shouldn't be only for bringing on that one community dropdeck you have for defending Arboreal Vault. Make them a good weapon choice for the tonnage. Not just the only weapon choice in an incredibly specific use case that's still outclassed by er large lasers.

[Bombast]

Kiran Yagami, on 08 February 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

And why, OH WHY, was an IS XL engine buff not included in this document? The single largest contributor to IS vs. Clan imbalance bar none, yet once again it's gone completely unmentioned. Remove IS XL side torso death FOREVER. Kill it with fire. Burn it. Throw acid on it. Urinate on the ashes. Ensure that no company will ever be stupid enough to attempt such a feat again.

Because focusing on one topic at a time is more productive than shotgunning different changes all at once.

Also, from what Chris (The current balancer) said during his interview, it seems construction rule balancing is a higher tier change than Quirks/Weapon stats. He doesn't even seem to be allowed to talk about it. So lets try for the softball changes first.

[H I A S]

Kiran Yagami, on 08 February 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

And why, OH WHY, was an IS XL engine buff not included in this document? The single largest contributor to IS vs. Clan imbalance bar none, yet once again it's gone completely unmentioned. Remove IS XL side torso death FOREVER. Kill it with fire. Burn it. Throw acid on it. Urinate on the ashes. Ensure that no company will ever be stupid enough to attempt such a feat again.

Because its about the weapons, not about Heatsinks, Ferro, Endo and Engines.

[R Valentine]

H I A S, on 08 February 2018 - 09:33 AM, said:

Because its about the weapons, not about Heatsinks, Ferro, Endo and Engines.

It's about balance. If balance is the issue, then engines definitely need to be a part of that discussion.

[Captain Caveman DE]

this goes into the right direction.

while I disagree on a few small & minor things, the bigger picture is about right


at the least we could have a PTS with those changes and see if the game is better or worse with em, eh?
and we can always tinker and adjust from there.

[FireStoat]

My honest feedback on PGI's changes is simple, and after playing both clans and IS.

- PGI described the engine decouple from agility as necessary to better define the different weight classes of mechs so they would be distinct from each other and prompt players to select a weight for a particular role. What we actually got was a mish-mash of different values for mechs along with a directed nerf to all upper and middle performing Clan mechs and 100 ton Assault mechs of all kinds. I would simply want the skill tree for mobility to offer an increased value of returns for points spent to be based on the weight class and tonnage of a mech, much like mediums and lights get an increased value from the durability tree.
Also, I think engine rating SHOULD matter for agility as a small multiplier. Investing a large amount of tonnage for only the return of higher top end speed and a minor increase of heat sink carry ability holds a minimal value. The Battlemaster used to be praised for its ability to go fast and turn fast due to sinking a big engine in it. Now it's been kicked to the side for bigger Assaults that take appropriate engines and more ballistics. Entire Assault mechs and playstyles were deleted with this move.

- Laser vomit is king even after all the nerfs to energy due to all the other nerfs to the weapons systems. Even Artemis got nerfed for whatever reason was imagined by a fevered brain. The game isn't any fun when a player is herded into the 'easy' choice over everything else. And for Scout play where SRMs are still seen, it's largely viewed to skip Artemis and simply get closer before firing. Options for loadouts and mixed loadouts need to be returned to players, because options are fun.

- Escort simply isn't any fun. It's even more of a chore for the attacking side with the change that radar caps will have the capping process halted upon taking damage, when the radar caps give the defending team full map ranged LoS of mechs for LRM fire. This change is the second dumbest thing I've seen in this game, with the Long Tom still being the first.

- The skill maze isn't fun. I actually like what it tries to do but after hearing feedback from people that I attempted to get to play the game with me, they said they had 'flashbacks' of spreadsheet intense games like Eve Online the moment they started to interact with it. As new players, they stated it filled them with a dubious feeling that they would be investing time-earned experience and Cbills into wrong choices, unless they cheated and looked up Meta build forums. This was clear evidence to me that if the skill tree was to encourage experimentation and diverse builds, it failed and failed hard when put into the hands of the NEW players to this game, which is something it so desperately needs.

Edited by FireStoat, 08 February 2018 - 09:39 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Kiran Yagami, on 08 February 2018 - 09:34 AM, said:

It's about balance. If balance is the issue, then engines definitely need to be a part of that discussion.

We have had OP IS mechs with XL engines before. I don't think its the mountain you are making it out to be.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Lets just wait for mobility part if it ever happens and then discuss the IS XL. I did a poll not so long ago, and for some mysterious reason half the votes were against the buffs.

[Tarogato]

Captain Caveman DE, on 08 February 2018 - 09:38 AM, said:

at the least we could have a PTS with those changes and see if the game is better or worse with em, eh?
and we can always tinker and adjust from there.

The biggest problem with doing a PTS, and why I really don't like the idea of a PTS for changes like this ... is because it really need a full live environment for the changes to play out and generate good data/metrics for analysis, and for players to get a real feel on the changes.

A PTS that just ends up being a couple hundred people playing 4v4 and maybe some private lobbies... that just won't be enough. It will be a waste of everybody's time. PTS is good for testing drastically new and different game mechanics. Not for fine-tuning.

[Captain Caveman DE]

Tarogato, on 08 February 2018 - 09:53 AM, said:

The biggest problem with doing a PTS, and why I really don't like the idea of a PTS for changes like this ... is because it really need a full live environment for the changes to play out and generate good data/metrics for analysis, and for players to get a real feel on the changes.

A PTS that just ends up being a couple hundred people playing 4v4 and maybe some private lobbies... that just won't be enough. It will be a waste of everybody's time. PTS is good for testing drastically new and different game mechanics. Not for fine-tuning.

I understand your line of thinking. it's just that I'd rather have a PTS and later on a normal server with these changes instead of PGI saying "yeah, we will do something.. sometime.. eventually. oh hey, wanna buy this shiny new mechpack?" and nothing comes of it.
the game needs changes, and if it works on the pts they have no reason to not roll it out on regular servers after that.
and having a pts can't be that hard.

a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush and stuff.