1125 replies to this topic

[Bersigil]

According to @russ_bullock, the recordings for the podcast have been done 10h ago.
Anyone having any ideal, wenn and where they will be aired?

[meteorol]

tokumboh, on 09 February 2018 - 03:30 AM, said:

It is not the IS Gauss/PPC that is the problem it is the 45/60 pinpoint damage of clans that seemed to be the issue
basically clan poptarting gauss/ppc

Well, i guess 35 ppd of 2 ppc/ 1 gauss shouldn't be a problem then?

Oh wait, according to people who are solely interested in keeping the skill ceiling as low as possible it is.

[Sjorpha]

Please everyone who supports this amazing initiative remember: This thread is important.

Yes there are a few forum warrior going at it again with their conspiracy "comp players pushing their own agenda blah blah..." nonsense, and some others with their "I totally already made the perfect and only solution for all of this and I'm going to spam it all over this thread", or "Everything is meaningless unless you do everything at once with a total rework of everything in the universe", also nonsense.

Those guys are doing the same useless derailing they always do, and it's important to remember that every forum has it's egotripping potatoes and not get triggered by this. It's impossible to make them respect real community initiatives like this, and it's impossible to stop them from posting, but it's still important to make the threads and have the discussion.

So just let them spam all they want, just ignore them and stick to adressing the real discussion of the balance initiative.

Edited by Sjorpha, 09 February 2018 - 05:15 AM.

[Khobai]

meteorol, on 09 February 2018 - 05:01 AM, said:

Well, i guess 35 ppd of 2 ppc/ 1 gauss shouldn't be a problem then?

Oh wait, according to people who are solely interested in keeping the skill ceiling as low as possible it is.

lmao, there is no conspiracy to keep the skill ceiling low.

if people actually wanted to keep the skill ceiling low there are far more effective ways to do it than keeping ghost heat on x2 PPC/Gauss.

keeping x2 PPC/Gauss ghost heated has absolutely nothing to do with manipulating the height of the skill ceiling.

it has to do with making sure sniping and brawling achieve parity.

because when you can do 35-40 PPFLD from the safety of long range then what incentive do you have to use dual AC20/HGR? Which only does 40-50 PPFLD but at 1/3rd the range.

brawling requires you to get closer. getting closer requires more risk. so there should be a substantial reward.

but when x2 PPC/Gauss basically gives you the same reward, with considerably less risk, then whats the point of dual AC/20? or dual HGR? or any other short range PPFLD combination?

Your whole agenda is to bring back the PPFLD sniping meta. We get that. But my agenda is a balanced meta that allows both sniping and brawling. And in a balanced meta, sniping needs to do considerably less damage than brawling because brawling requires considerably more risk than sniping, and that added risk needs to pay off.

I want playstyle diversity. Because thats how you make the game fun again.

I do not want to abduct top 1%ers and turn them into potatos. that is not my objective.

Edited by Khobai, 09 February 2018 - 05:55 AM.

[Black Lanner]

I just found this thread, read though the first third of it. If this suggestion has already pop up, well I would like to reinforce it. When I got into MWO, the first thing I noticed was weapon convergence. I was very confused by it. To misquote Razorfist, MW4 had a reticule the size of a Beach Ball. There was a Cone of Fire. Many in my unit have remarked on how implementing this would fix many of the balance issues in two ways. First, the power of pinpoint weapons would more or less be partially nullified because, well, you take away convergence. Second, It would give proper utility to Targeting Computers, because then if you wanted to build a sniper 'Mech or have a weapons build that had convergence to pinpoint torsos, then you invest in the TComp.

Having read through the OP and related material... I had a twitch. This is because I am a Battletech Fan. I love All things Battletech, the Good and, well, MechAssault. I had to remind myself over and over that 1) this is not the TableTop 2) I really want this game to succeed and 3) we need this game to be enjoyable and appealing to the widest possible group of players. I believe the the OP is on the right track and it is my hope that PGI listens.

[B0oN]

Sounds interesting, but let´s be realistic and honest for just about 60 seconds, okay ?

Even if those changes would drop live, is there really any belief that this will bring some semblance of balance to the gameplay and bring back players ?

By my estimation those chances are very, very slim, and, mind you, I´m not even talking about this set of changes getting incorporated into the game by PGI .

[Bud Crue]

B0oN, on 09 February 2018 - 05:36 AM, said:

Sounds interesting, but let´s be realistic and honest for just about 60 seconds, okay ?

Even if those changes would drop live, is there really any belief that this will bring some semblance of balance to the gameplay and bring back players ?

By my estimation those chances are very, very slim, and, mind you, I´m not even talking about this set of changes getting incorporated into the game by PGI .

Ya gotta start somewhere, and this is the first time since the “round tables” that PGI has even hinted that they are open to hearing what the community has to say on something. Will the proposed changes bring new players if instituted? No, probably not in the least. Might they make the game play a tad bit more consistent and maybe give some weapons and some builds using those weapons more competitive viability than just gauss/vomit or laser vomit? I think so. Might they give those of us who still play a reason to keep playing? I hope so, cuz after the last 8 months of non-stop “balancing” by PGI, I’m about ready to call it. Let someone else give it a try. It cannot be worse than what we have now.

Baby steps

[Scyther]

I'm with Black Lanner (couple posts above) on the weapon convergence issue. I can certainly live with it, but to me it represented one of the greatest contrasts between BattleTechs I had played in the past (TT included) and this shooter.

I realize that the shooter crowd is primarily focused on 'all my shots going exactly where I aimed them' because hey, headshots are da bomb. But this isn't in line with the way BT was ever designed, and games like WoT seem to have no problem making millions with cones of fire and accuracy ratings on weapons.

I would agree that many of the issues we have, TTK, PPFLD, Ghost heat etc, were brought about because of instant, near-perfect convergence on MWO weapons fire. I think a lot of options would be opened up if we could, for once, get (parts of) the community to shake their need to feel like battlefield snipers with marksman awards.

I agree with Bud that 'ya gotta start somewhere', but I also believe we can chase weapons tweaking in circles forever without much net resulting change in overall game play if we don't also address some of the basic design decisions of the game.

(Edit: non-perfect convergence would also open up a host of options for mech quirks, weapon tweaks, skills etc)

Edited by MadBadger, 09 February 2018 - 05:59 AM.

[M R T]

I didn't get to read through every post here, so I don't know if it was brought up. I feel the UACs need a reduction in JAM chance, scaled by weight.

The light weight UAC/2 has a greater rate of fire than the UAC/20, so jams happen more frequently on those. Because of that, the jam chance should be lower for the UAC/2 than for the UAC/20. Example:

* UAC/20 jam chance 1/6
* UAC/10 jam chance 1/10
* UAC/5 jam chance 1/14
* UAC/2 jam chance 1/18

Values used in the example are not important, they can be adjusted as needed. The point is that they should scale with the weight of the weapon.

I see jam chance as being equal to a fumble, rendering your weapon unusable for some time. If you turn it around, and use the same chance to score a critical hit, the number of crits you would get on a rapid fire weapon would be absurd. For that reason, rapid fire weapons should also have a lower chance for fumble.

[Tom Sawyer]

I have been accused of having become one of the more salty OLD players. When ever Bud and I drop its raining mortons. I support this drive for change. May Dane's video actually make a change. May this thread not end up like so many of the others. May it not end up like so many of the round tables. MAY PGI ACTUALLY LISTEN.

Because if they do not and this train wreck of would you like to buy a mechpack, hey check out MW5, Hey shiny new warnhorn, then the sad spiral will just continue. Seriously PGI jus listen and actually respond.

[Judah Malganis]

I think an easier way of balancing the weapons would be to reduce mech heat capacity. MWO mechs have a base of 50 heat cap with DHS plus a bonus per additional HS past 10. With heat caps like that, players can puke huge alphas repeatedly and shred opponents in seconds. TT has 30 regardless of HS count and HS only add dissipation. I don't think MWO would work if every mech had a 30 cap, but a reduction might work. Mediums and heavy mechs shouldn't be able to spit out alphas that rival some assaults and be able to do it twice. Lights could have 30 cap, mediums 35, heavies 40, and assaults 45, improved with skills. Then, HS could be changed to pure dissipation only, with IS going 2 per HS and clan 1.8 per HS.

That soultion would reduce the amount of alpha fire in the game, since it forces players to stagger fire and consider sustained fire on a target, and would be a much easier solution than tweaking every weapon in the game. Ghost heat might become unecessary in most cases and TTK would increase. I doubt the suggestion would be popular, though, since people are usually OCD about being able to peek high alphas, and don't like sustained brawls.

Edited by Judah Malganis, 09 February 2018 - 06:46 AM.

[sycocys]

I'm 1000% behind creating actual game balance.....

but you aren't going to get anywhere if you just ignore things like the buff with no offsetting cost skill node system.
or continue to refuse to address hardpoint inflation
never create some sort of assymetrical balance for the different techs at the base level

And it completely doesn't pay to be mucking about with the weapons trying to achieve some sort of relative balance if you aren't implementing things like energy draw and heat scale to help control the everlasting problems with the high alpha/run on override + flushes type builds.

Tom Sawyer, on 09 February 2018 - 06:05 AM, said:

I have been accused of having become one of the more salty OLD players.

Some day you'll surpass me!

[meteorol]

Khobai, on 09 February 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

lmao, there is no conspiracy to keep the skill ceiling low.

Yeah "conspiracy" would really give too much credit.

It's very basic "i'm too bad to use it, i'm too bad to play against it, hence i don't want others to use it against me". Really simple. The low skill ceiling is a result.

Khobai, on 09 February 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

but when x2 PPC/Gauss basically gives you the same reward, with considerably less risk, then whats the point of dual AC/20?

Dual AC 20 should provide 40 dmg for considerably less heat than 2x er ppc/gauss on less range with lower cooldown. Gostheat on AC 20 must be lowered considerably.

Khobai, on 09 February 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

Your whole agenda is to bring back the PPFLD sniping meta.

I want playstyle diversity. Because thats how you make the game fun again.

Oh you want build diversity by flat out removing a build from the game. Makes sense. Oh wait, it doesn't. It literally makes zero sense.

See, this why it does not make sense to bring balance discussions to the forum. You didn't even notice how the meta was shifting away from ER PPC/Gauss before the goddamn ghostheat was even implemented. It simply went past you.

You know what you probably didn't notice aswell? The fact that 2 ER-PPC, 1 Gauss was a build used incredibly seldomly. You saw it once in the blue moon on a timber. And that's it. Even while Gauss/PPC was a part of the meta (not the meta), this build was not. Because it's neither as strong as you claim it to be, nor the boogeyman you want it to be. It was a niche build with a handfull of dedicaded users. Because it's neither strong enough, nor easy enough to use for the broad majority of spuds. The last Gauss/PPC meta, for the time it existed, was carried the KDK-3, the NTG, and the MAD IIC. That's it. The 2x ER PPC, 1x Gauss timber could not compete with either of these builds and was a niche build for all time Gauss/PPC was part of the recent meta. You would see 30 NTG for every single TW on the field.

My "agenda" is bringing back a less powerfull version of the a weaponcombo that the meta already shifted away from when it was removed from the game to throw people who enjoy using gauss and PPC a bone and thereby increase build diversity. Flat out removing a build from the game decreases build diversity. And don't even think about giving me a "but 35 ppd will remove every other build by being better than them". Don't you do that. Don't be a tool. It did jack about the meta shifting towards laservomit, and it will do jack in regards of shifting the meta back to gauss/ppc. It will simply increase diversity. And that's it.

But... in the end you went as far as using "cheaters can use it" as argument why 35 ppd can't be in the game. Which is, by the way, the most embarassing arguement i have ever seen in a balance discussion, in years of browsing countless gaming forums. gz on that. Little use for discussion here.

Anyway, see you . Took a litte dive in the brown sea, my eyes are now once more covered in sh*t, and i'll be off for a few months again.

[Burke IV]

lazytopaz, on 09 February 2018 - 04:50 AM, said:

So guys (and girls), you should really all put the differences that divide all of you and unite under a banner that is MWO. Because all of us like to play this game. That's the thing that we share above anything else. So for the good of the game itself all of you should stop the arguing just for once and just do what's right.
Unless you don't care about the game then why are you even here? Don't you have anything better or more fun to do?

And it should focus on the complete removal of the skill tree. That alone would start to restore build diversity. Even with all my moaning if there was no tree i would probably just changed my build and got on with it.

[Verilligo]

Black Lanner, on 09 February 2018 - 05:33 AM, said:

When I got into MWO, the first thing I noticed was weapon convergence. I was very confused by it. To misquote Razorfist, MW4 had a reticule the size of a Beach Ball. There was a Cone of Fire.

This is not true, though. MW4 had no cone of fire. If there was any uncertainty in where shots would land, it was due to hardpoint spacing. In fact it was even worse in MW4 because lasers there were sticky and dealt full damage up front. I think one of the Mektek modifications was supposed to add some additional level of uncertainty in aiming, but if memory serves that was the last mod that ended up never being released.

I keep wondering if people are misremembering what MW4 was like. I noticed earlier that someone else was talking about Gauss/PPC being cancer in MW4. Nobody cared about Gauss/PPC in MW4, that was never a meta outside of maybe IS Puretech rules, which the vast majority of the playerbase did not follow. Gauss/ERLL spam was relatively commonplace, though, because anything smaller than a Large Laser was effectively just a paint scratcher. Regardless, this isn't MW4, we don't have the clever balancing that shaped and typed hardpoints provided. That's part of the actual problem here.

[Bud Crue]

Taro needs to ask a mod to come in and delete all posts (including this one) not relevant to the OP or discussing weapons’ values.

I mean come on, this is getting silly.
The OP’s effort is not about addressing clan XL vs IS imbalance. Not about addressing disparate heat sink performance. Not looking to solve the issues one may have with convergence, a cone of fire solution, or anything else not explicitly discussed in the linked spreadsheet and google docs documents linked in the OP. This thread is just some players effort at maintaining some momentum from MTD’s video to try and get PGI to consider some new weapons’ values that might be more balanced than what we currently have. Weapons’ values. That’s it. Give them feedback on the weapons’ values that they have proposed. Maybe even discuss what those values might imply but come on, focus people.

All of this other...dross...plugging up the thread is just creating distraction, confusion and providing PGI with prima facie evidence that we are not as a community behind this effort. So if you don’t have actual feedback on the the effort linked in the OP, can we all agree to stfu?

Thank god for Reddit...I guess.

[McValium]

Removed another couple posts that where reported to us, offttopic, discussing moderation etc. Feel free to continue discussing the proposal and balancing in a calm manner

[TheArisen]

I like most of the changes put forward so I hope PGI takes it's time looking this over and at the very least gives it a try.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 08 February 2018 - 08:06 PM, said:

The reason a lot of people are against Gauss + 2 PPC is because you can headshot with it.

Are long range headshots really something we want in the game?

long range PPFLD should be limited to 30 damage IMO.

the ability to headshot needs to be limited to short range.

You literally have to be stationary for that to happen unless you are in close quarters. Velocity difference.

I get headshot literally less than once a month, so I don't really care about them.

Khobai, on 09 February 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

lmao, there is no conspiracy to keep the skill ceiling low.

if people actually wanted to keep the skill ceiling low there are far more effective ways to do it than keeping ghost heat on x2 PPC/Gauss.

keeping x2 PPC/Gauss ghost heated has absolutely nothing to do with manipulating the height of the skill ceiling.

it has to do with making sure sniping and brawling achieve parity.

because when you can do 35-40 PPFLD from the safety of long range then what incentive do you have to use dual AC20/HGR? Which only does 40-50 PPFLD but at 1/3rd the range.

brawling requires you to get closer. getting closer requires more risk. so there should be a substantial reward.

but when x2 PPC/Gauss basically gives you the same reward, with considerably less risk, then whats the point of dual AC/20? or dual HGR? or any other short range PPFLD combination?

Your whole agenda is to bring back the PPFLD sniping meta. We get that. But my agenda is a balanced meta that allows both sniping and brawling. And in a balanced meta, sniping needs to do considerably less damage than brawling because brawling requires considerably more risk than sniping, and that added risk needs to pay off.

I want playstyle diversity. Because thats how you make the game fun again.

I do not want to abduct top 1%ers and turn them into potatos. that is not my objective.

Pretty much everything that you say "needs" to happen, lowers the skill ceiling. Just FYI.

[Eirik Eriksson]

I agree with the changes put forward as a whole and it was a very good idea to break the wanted changes down a bit and start off with the weapons.

My only concern is the change for gauss/PPC combos. Being a bit of a laser specialist myself, I actually did not test out gauss for the first time until the NTG was released. My experience from that time is that when you get into a low tier match, the 2gauss/ppc combo, gets really overpowered. Even if it takes a lot of practice to land the pinpoint in a “normal” match, it basically takes no or very little skill at all to land them where you want them in a low tier match.

Edited by Slow Speed, 09 February 2018 - 08:22 AM.