1125 replies to this topic

[TheMadTypist]

Reading through the Google doc you had me until recommending the slot change for IS lbx20. Any community that recommends changes to the fundamental build rules is not a community that speaks for me. It opens a Pandora's box of claims that x weapon is too large or too heavy as everyone seeks ideal build changes for their pet equipment. It is as much a non-starter as letting IS omnis ignore omni limitations.

[Gas Guzzler]

So aside from Khobai, do we at least all agree that 2 PPC Gauss combos can come back?

[Thinkagain01]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2018 - 08:30 AM, said:

So aside from Khobai, do we at least all agree that 2 PPC Gauss combos can come back?

I really hope this nightmare doesn't come back.

[Ghogiel]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2018 - 08:30 AM, said:

So aside from Khobai, do we at least all agree that 2 PPC Gauss combos can come back?

There will be a lot of players not wanting that to come back beside khobai. Half the player pop has ptsd over gauss peep. Sure it's the lower half mind you... but still

Edited by Ghogiel, 09 February 2018 - 08:43 AM.

[CFC Conky]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2018 - 08:30 AM, said:

So aside from Khobai, do we at least all agree that 2 PPC Gauss combos can come back?

No thank you.

[Johnathan Von Tanner]

TheMadTypist, on 09 February 2018 - 08:27 AM, said:

Reading through the Google doc you had me until recommending the slot change for IS lbx20. Any community that recommends changes to the fundamental build rules is not a community that speaks for me. It opens a Pandora's box of claims that x weapon is too large or too heavy as everyone seeks ideal build changes for their pet equipment. It is as much a non-starter as letting IS omnis ignore omni limitations.

This I do agree with. Changing slot sizes on weapons is a door that should stay closed.

[Nema Nabojiv]

TheMadTypist, on 09 February 2018 - 08:27 AM, said:

Reading through the Google doc you had me until recommending the slot change for IS lbx20. Any community that recommends changes to the fundamental build rules is not a community that speaks for me. It opens a Pandora's box of claims that x weapon is too large or too heavy as everyone seeks ideal build changes for their pet equipment. It is as much a non-starter as letting IS omnis ignore omni limitations.

Already too late to worry about that. After ghostheat and what's happened with CERPPC all things "fundamental" might as well be ignored.

[Bombast]

TheMadTypist, on 09 February 2018 - 08:27 AM, said:

Reading through the Google doc you had me until recommending the slot change for IS lbx20. Any community that recommends changes to the fundamental build rules is not a community that speaks for me. It opens a Pandora's box of claims that x weapon is too large or too heavy as everyone seeks ideal build changes for their pet equipment. It is as much a non-starter as letting IS omnis ignore omni limitations.

It's a crit splitting bypass change, not a slippery slope.

[Gas Guzzler]

CFC Conky, on 09 February 2018 - 08:41 AM, said:

No thank you.

You think 2 PPC 1 Gauss builds would be OP in this game right now?

Ghogiel, on 09 February 2018 - 08:38 AM, said:

There will be a lot of players not wanting that to come back beside khobai. Half the player pop has ptsd over gauss peep. Sure it's the lower half mind you... but still

But it's only 35 damage... The alternative is dual gauss with lasers which is 30 PPFLD and 28+ laser damage on top of it..

[Sigmar Sich]

Bombast, on 09 February 2018 - 09:14 AM, said:

It's a crit splitting bypass change, not a slippery slope.

If PGI can't do dynamic crit splitting (that's ok), we should ask for split "presets", same as with XL engines. No need for dynamic X+Y slots, but only for 10+1, if LB20 is mounted in arm.

P.S. Though we do have dynamic crit splitting coded... Endo/Ferro slots

Edited by Sigmar Sich, 09 February 2018 - 09:27 AM.

[GenJack]

Personally I like the skill tree as is... I do think it could be reduced a little to make some nodes (seismic/sensor/movement in general) more important to take.

Also some ease of use improvements, like auto pathing, maybe saving preset skill sections so you can load up a saved Missile layout then make changes and such.

I really like a lot of these changes for the weapons presented... in that though I am afraid of the return of Gauss and PPC meta... but beyond that I'd say most of these changes would be amazing.

The LBX20 Velocity should not be faster than the LBX10... that just seems like an oversight, anyone saying otherwise just likes their meta.

Not sure about the size reduction for it but it could be interesting.



Oh and I am not sure if anyone else has a problem with ATM3's but they seem to be completely useless... any amount of AMS is just able to totally remove the threat of them...

Beyond that I like other ATMs the way they are, I think tracking is good.

Edited by GenJack, 09 February 2018 - 09:41 AM.

[Bombast]

GenJack, on 09 February 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:

The LBX20 Velocity should not be faster than the 10 or the AC20... that just seems like an oversight, anyone saying otherwise just likes their meta.

The velocity is one of the perks the LB-20X due to it absurd installation cost. Maybe it shouldn't be greater than than the LB-10X, but why it should be lower than the AC/20 is a mystery to me. Not sure what you mean by calling the weapon system meta though - it's generally considered a garbage weapon, outside of a handful of niche builds.

[TheMadTypist]

Bombast, on 09 February 2018 - 09:14 AM, said:

It's a crit splitting bypass change, not a slippery slope.

I didn't see any of the restrictions and limitations of crit splitting in there, only a crit reduction. The full implementation of crit splitting would be cool, but this is just a change to a fundamental value for the hell of it. Remember, this is a community that gave rise to multiple multi-page threads on bending rules to give endo to the summoner because it wasn't living up to expectations, give them this opening and it will escalate.

[GenJack]

Bombast, on 09 February 2018 - 09:35 AM, said:

The velocity is one of the perks the LB-20X due to it absurd installation cost. Maybe it shouldn't be greater than than the LB-10X, but why it should be lower than the AC/20 is a mystery to me. Not sure what you mean by calling the weapon system meta though - it's generally considered a garbage weapon, outside of a handful of niche builds.

Whoops yeah just looked at the velocity of the regular 20 and yeah it should still be faster than that... as per the document linked by OP.

And idk, I've seen a good amount of peeps using it.

Edited by GenJack, 09 February 2018 - 09:42 AM.

[Scyther]

20 pages and going strong. Lots of fractious wordplay but that's to be expected in a game people have been passionate about for 30+ years now.

A thought I would like to toss out: it is hard to judge the merits of 'is X ppfld okay?'; 'is weapon combo Y ok?'; 'should Z damage at range N be allowed?' by community discussion or by looking at those issues in isolation. Everyone will have an opinion based largely on their own experience with the game.

As noted in a couple posts above, making basic changes to the rules/quantities of an established IP opens a Pandoras box. So perhaps 'tweaking' is all we can do. Yet I would recommend taking a step back first and asking:

-Who is the target audience that should be playing/supporting/paying for MWO?

-What is the skill level of the majority of those people?

-How should the pacing and action of a match proceed for that audience? Should it be a fast, shooter-like, 1-2 shots and you are dead, on to the next match? Or should it be a slower, World of Tanks (or Ships) like experience where you move out, take positions, spot foes as they get in range, exchange fire, re-position etc.

Then the weapons, mechs, quirks and values should be adjusted to fit that pacing.

Personally I feel that most of the changes in MWO over time have led to power creep - as in most games, after all, why buy something new if it's not 'better'? This current proposal I like for the balancing and role-separation of weapons, but it also feels like a little more power creep/reduced TTK/greater skill gap when taken together.

Of course survivability and match pacing can be altered by other factors, but if so I'd like to have at least some notion of what those factors are before giving a thumbs-up to a fairly broad 'weapons a little more effective but within reason' balance pass.

Edited by MadBadger, 09 February 2018 - 09:45 AM.

[Navid A1]

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.

So increase the GH limit on AC20s to 2?
yup, i agree with that!

The whole point of Gauss PPC is PPFLD, and low dps.
The point of AC20 is both PPFLD AND dps!
do you consider SRMs a weak weapon, becasue they are not PPFLD?
Close range weighs heavy towards dps.

Also, our agenda is making every play-style viable
Your's is to keep some dead!

You think G/PPC is the problem when you want to close the distance?
nope. the problem is the path you are taking... otherwise, ERLL spam is gonna give you more trouble.... you'll lose your leg in the open in no time!, while missed shots (due to convergence) gives you a better chance of closing in even in the open.

Edited by Navid A1, 09 February 2018 - 10:57 AM.

[Bombast]

TheMadTypist, on 09 February 2018 - 09:39 AM, said:

I didn't see any of the restrictions and limitations of crit splitting in there, only a crit reduction. The full implementation of crit splitting would be cool, but this is just a change to a fundamental value for the hell of it. Remember, this is a community that gave rise to multiple multi-page threads on bending rules to give endo to the summoner because it wasn't living up to expectations, give them this opening and it will escalate.

They're reducing the crit size because crit splitting isn't on the table ( if it was, it would have been done by now). As it stands now, the LB-20X is shackled with construction problems it was never supposed to have, like being locked out of LFE and XL engines and arms.

The LB-20X, at 11 or 10 crits, has lost it's 'fundimental values.'. At least at 10 crits its not stuck in a single build type.

Edited by Bombast, 09 February 2018 - 09:47 AM.

[Mister Glitchdragon]

Ghogiel, on 09 February 2018 - 08:38 AM, said:

There will be a lot of players not wanting that to come back... Half the player pop has ptsd over gauss peep.

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2018 - 09:18 AM, said:

But it's only 35 damage... The alternative is dual gauss with lasers which is 30 PPFLD and 28+ laser damage on top of it..

To be fair, it's possible to twist-around that laser damage. Gauss/PPC combos put it all in one hit box. Still, I agree that there's been so much power-creep in this game since the Gauss/PPC scourge. Remember when a 40 dmg. alpha was scary? I agree its time to lose the PPC/Gauss ghost heat. I'd also like to see Gauss (both Clan and IS) get some range back.

Keep the Gauss charge-up mechanic, it puts a bit of a skill-cellar on big PPFLD and makes it more of a challenge to put PPC fire and Gauss rounds into the same hit box downrange.

For the IS LGR, raise the 2-rifle link-limit to 3. I was playing around with LG last night, and the range is nice (makes me nostalgic for pre-nerf Gauss, see above!) and the ROF is good, but there's still no firm reason to choose LGR over GR (too heavy, not enough damage). IS Heavies and assaults built around 3 LGR might bring something new to the field.

As for the OP doc, looks good to me.

[Y E O N N E]

If you raise the LGR charge limit to 3 then you have to balance the entire weapon system around using 3, which makes it suck when you want to use just 2 on something like a RIfleman or a Warhammer.

[Humpday]

I don't quite think its a good idea to bring back Gauss Peep to be honest...I mean me personally I'm ok with it, but the players I'm going to be shooting with it are not going to be happy...quite miserable in fact. I'm no crack shot by any means, but nailing someone 600m out with 40-50pts of damage when they cannot retaliate...i mean...come on.

On the flip side...i don't care to get one shot in my light mechs by someone who is ungodly with ppc/gauss. Dual heavy gauss is already scary enough...dont' need to add more power to that.

EDIT: never mind, appears some sort of update has occurred in the doc and the PPC/Gauss thing is now crossed out. Carry on, nothing to see here.

EDIT2: I didn't read it all the way through, it was a partial rollback.

Edited by Humpday, 09 February 2018 - 10:13 AM.