1125 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Kin3ticX, on 09 February 2018 - 09:36 PM, said:

I don't think you put a lot of thought into your posts. Are you trolling me?

Yeah sure we'll tweet Russ and ask him to nerf buildings, buildings OP. That will fix LRMs.

There just isnt a way to make LRMs more skill based. Its the nature of a homing weapon, it aims itself if you havent noticed.

I kinda agree, it's the homing problem that's the issue. Although it's kind of accurate to also say that with poor ammo-efficiency, it's kind of like LRMs compensate by having a lot of missiles just to do their thing. I want to remake the LRMs too. Although going at this direction isn't really all that bad, even if it doesn't address ALL that makes the LRMs not that good.

Think of it as a shotgun, in which it's a lot easier to hit people because of it's multiple projectile than a rifle. Which is more of a waste? A missed 1 shot of AC10 or AC20?

So we need to go along with the direction of the rifle to make the LRMs a bit more demanding of skill. And that is make volleys a lot more important than they can just piss away, prompting them to make more educated lurming than just spamming it over and over since a few volleys are bound to land.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 February 2018 - 09:44 PM.

[B0oN]

Bud Crue, on 09 February 2018 - 05:47 AM, said:

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

I know, and I give a full trillion points for all the effort invested by the people creating it, yet I felt I needed to throw in a bit of "call-to-reality" lest people get overagitated .
It is very reassuring to see that y´all know how minimal the chances are .
I still very dearly wish that PGI caves in and allows these changes to happen, so we can test the everliving hankypank out of this .

GO BABY STEPS; I COMMAND THEE !

[Cybrid 0x0t2md2w]

I like a lot of these changes, but one I really want more of is usage of uac20s and lbx20s. especially clan uac20s that have too long of a bullet spread of shots, too slow and if it jams you're ******.

edit-

but now if I were to organize my thoughts(in a sloppy vague manner):

energy- (is/clan)
small laser and pulse ghost heat limit 8
medium laser and pulse ghost heat still 6
large laser and pulse ghost heat 3

ER sizes, same as above.

heavy small ghost heat 8
heavy medium ghost heat 6
heavy large ghost heat 2

ppc ghost heat 3
snub ppc ghost heat 3
light ppc ghost heat 6
heavy ppc ghost heat still 2

I agree most ppcs need some heat reduction(except clan)
-

missiles-

lrms all sizes, increased tracking strength and lasting missile lock.
spread reduced

tag, narc, artimis and skill tree spread reduction stack.
Or.
tag now funnels missiles in a more singular spot where the tag lands or where the narc hit.(selective part removal?)
targeting computers receive a lock on strength(lock time when not visible), missile range, missile velocity and a spread reduction for srms, lrms and atms. (usage for missile improvements?)

streak srms
ability to lock on to a specific part by tag/narc. number of missiles per launcher able to lock that target piece improved by targeting computer.

atms
2x missile hp
I agree with reducing their turn rate so lighter mechs can evade them by moving.

narc
as listed with lrms and streaks, narc rocket causes locked missiles to home on the section the narc landed on. number of missiles per launcher able to lock that target piece improved by targeting computer.
-

ballistics

IS seems mostly fine besides lbx 2/5/20

lbx 2/5/20 should have some weight shaved off and a crit slot removed. maybe spread reduction.

clan uac20
firing time reduced
4 bullets reduced to 3(I agree with this)
faster velocity sounds good
reduced jam chance

machineguns
IS needs more damage
both heavy mguns need more ammo(agree with 1500)
-



I understand this is about weapon balance, but it should have one of the topics include removal of radar deprivation to fully centralize how missile lock on strength is meant to work for each missile type. and if there is one, good.

Edited by Cybrid 0x0t2md2w, 09 February 2018 - 10:56 PM.

[Navid A1]

The6thMessenger, on 09 February 2018 - 09:29 PM, said:

Honestly no -- that's my greedy self talking.

But seeing that we're increasing the damage/shot from 0.8 to 1.0, it would be prudent to increase the heat/shot as well. The DPS and HPS is equalized with their GH limits. The 3x RAC2 would have the same 7.2 HPS as the 2x RAC5 has 7.2 HPS.

Although if you want it to be really really cool, that's fine i guess.

But i can see the heat difference biting us back when 3x RAC2 is a lot cooler than the 2x RAC5 -- but the again for the less tonnage, that is 3x RAC2 needs 24 tons while 2x RAC5 needs only 20 tons, maybe it's something to further incentivize RAC2 enmasse.

Are you people considering the 8 shots/sec too? Cause that would actually be awesome.

Here is what I'm gonna push for:

RAC2
- Rof to 8
- damage to 1
- spin-up to 0.5
- ramp down time to 6
- jammed time to 7
- velocity to 2000
- 1.8 heat (as in our first proposal)

RAC5:
- Rof to 8
- damage to 1.5 (as it is)
- spin-up to 0.75
- ramp down time to 7
- jammed time to 8
- velocity to 1500
- 3.6 heat (as in our first proposal)
- ammo to 200/ton



LOTs of changes... but we'll see what e can agree on

[Y E O N N E]

Tarogato, on 09 February 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

Heh, you caught me. We discussed it, we agreed on it, but I forgot to put it in the sheet. So you reminded me. ERML is now 4.0 heat.


As for the cLPL ... well, I'm really not happy with the clan laser changes in general right now. Esp all the larges. We've done some reviewing and changes for the IS side, but we haven't reviewed clan laser yet, so that's tomorrow.

I think the root of the problem is that you're running straight into the IS heat dissipation wall. It's clear one of the goals is to make more of the Clan laser arsenals usable by lighter 'Mechs that can't boat the heatsinks, but doing this makes them overly powerful on the heavier 'Mechs, all because the IS run out of dissipation for damage that isn't even quite as comparable.

You can actually buy some room to maneuver if you bump up the IS ghost heat limit for Medium-class from 6 to 7/8, so IS can spend more of their tonnage on the various ways to get more sinks in on certain 'Mechs, e.g. HBK-4P, BJ-1X, even the BK series for going pulse-boat.That, or weaken the penalty for firing 8 such that it's near the heat that 6x cERML generate (e.g. 6x cERML is 35.4 heat, so 8x isERML could ghost to 36, and the 9th can be a more potent penalty).

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 09 February 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

Here is what I'm gonna push for:

RAC2
- Rof to 8
- damage to 1
- spin-up to 0.5
- ramp down time to 6
- jammed time to 7
- velocity to 2000
- 1.8 heat (as in our first proposal)

RAC5:
- Rof to 8
- damage to 1.5 (as it is)
- spin-up to 0.75
- ramp down time to 7
- jammed time to 8
- velocity to 1500
- 3.6 heat (as in our first proposal)
- ammo to 200/ton

LOTs of changes... but we'll see what e can agree on

I see, so nay on my reliable version? Well, okay, baby steps of course.

Although it's not just "RampDownTime" it's "JamRampDownTime", with the behavior of the ingame weapon I say the RampDownTime is the window of time where we're eligible to continue shooting without suffering the spin-up time.

If that's our new approach, the RACs still being erratic and can yield so much damage in one go, and with the jam-chance (seemingly) still at 3.7% it would still result in a high amount of extra shots at redline.

In short, i think you should at least raise the red-line jam-chance for at least 5% or something to offset that reduced jammed time and jam dissipation so it wouldn't be all buffs. My concern is perhaps the powerful all-buffs version would eventually bite us back in the *** with PGI eventually giving it the nerf-bat.

But if you really want that really powerful version of RACs, well I'm fine with it, we both get what we want anyways. At least we get out with something.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 February 2018 - 03:46 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

Navid A1, on 09 February 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

Here is what I'm gonna push for:

RAC2
- Rof to 8
- damage to 1
- spin-up to 0.5
- ramp down time to 6
- jammed time to 7
- velocity to 2000
- 1.8 heat (as in our first proposal)

RAC5:
- Rof to 8
- damage to 1.5 (as it is)
- spin-up to 0.75
- ramp down time to 7
- jammed time to 8
- velocity to 1500
- 3.6 heat (as in our first proposal)
- ammo to 200/ton



LOTs of changes... but we'll see what e can agree on

so the vanilla AC2 does like 2.8 DPS and you are proposing the Rac2 does 8DPS from ~5 right now. wow. What does that put the jam adjusted DPS of the Rac2 at? Without knowing what the jam adjusted DPS on the ultra-2 and the rac2 from testing I dunno if the weapon pecking orders will make any sense. (but I also dont think PGI will do anything from that list anyways)

Vanilla AC2's used to do 4DPS but they were nerfed becuz reasons. They were barely viable but apparently there was an AC2 massacre at the bottom feeder tier because people just stand there like turrets and take it. That or AC2 was breaking ghost heat and the programmer than made it all quit or something. A similar logic may be dictating what they do with RACs.

Don't forget about the old super quirked dragon with the 50% cooldown quirk. It was pumping a solid ~18 DPS with just 2x AC5 and even then it was pretty situational. 24DPS with 2xRot5 might be a lil crazy considering its not even superquirked, even if its for a few seconds at a time. You risk messing with the pecking orders if the jam adjusted DPS is way way above a vanilla AC5.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 10 February 2018 - 12:01 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kin3ticX, on 09 February 2018 - 11:56 PM, said:

so the vanilla AC2 does like 2.8 DPS and you are proposing the Rac2 does 8DPS from ~5 right now. wow. What does that put the jam adjusted DPS of the Rac2 at? Without knowing what the jam adjusted DPS on the ultra-2 and the rac2 from testing I dunno if the weapon pecking orders will make any sense. (but I also dont think PGI will do anything from that list anyways)

Vanilla AC2's used to do 4DPS but they were nerfed becuz reasons. They were barely viable but apparently there was an AC2 massacre at the bottom feeder tier because people just stand there like turrets and take it. That or AC2 was breaking ghost heat and the programmer than made it all quit or something. A similar logic may be dictating what they do with RACs.

Don't forget about the old super quirked dragon with the 50% cooldown quirk. It was pumping a solid ~18 DPS with just 2x AC5 and even then it was pretty situational. 24DPS with 2xRot5 might be a lil crazy considering its not even superquirked, even if its for a few seconds at a time. You risk messing with the pecking orders if the jam adjusted DPS is way way above a vanilla AC5.

Here's the formula: https://www.reddit.c...yaynay/dtzhtsw/

Upfront DPS is 5.82, but then it goes 2.10 accounting current jam dissipation, and 2.9 at an average redline jamming, which is hilariously low compared to weight. You may do good upfront damage, but then considering that RAC5 is just 2 tons away, that AC5 is 5 PPFLD and of the same weight, and that 2.9 DPS is actually 8.7s of stare time -- yeah that's pretty bad.

Those new calculation, assuming the same 6s Jam ramp-up, would produce 44 damage without redlining it, causing 3.6667 DPS. Redlining it with 3.7% jam-chance, produces 71.027027027027027027027027027027 damage, and yields 8.8783783783783783783783783783784s of shoot time = 4.3366336633663366336633663366338 EDPS.

Yeah, that's pretty powerful. I like it, but I do think that it would bite us to our butt, and PGI could eventually nerfbat it.

The UAC2 though, with 15% chance of jam means it jams every 6.6666666666666666666666666666667 double-shoot, thus doing 26.666666666666666666666666666667 damage, of 0.75s / shot and 2.9s of jam time = 7.9s = 3.3755274261603375527426160337553 EDPS.

So yeah the RAC2 is pretty damn strong with this new stuff.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 February 2018 - 12:24 AM.

[0Jiggs0]

The6thMessenger, on 09 February 2018 - 09:42 PM, said:

So we need to go along with the direction of the rifle to make the LRMs a bit more demanding of skill. And that is make volleys a lot more important than they can just piss away, prompting them to make more educated lurming than just spamming it over and over since a few volleys are bound to land.

Slow firing, hard hitting launchers sounds good for both sides, but why not add a little flavor? Buff the velocity and damage of the IS missiles further than the Clan versions, but give the Clans their "hook shot" back.

Navid A1, on 09 February 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

Here is what I'm gonna push for:

RAC2
- Rof to 8
- damage to 1
- spin-up to 0.5
- ramp down time to 6
- jammed time to 7
- velocity to 2000
- 1.8 heat (as in our first proposal)

If this goes through, my dual-RAC2 Marauder is coming out of retirement! That said, I have an alternate suggestion: Give RACs crit damage bonuses similar to machine guns, making them the IS counterpart to Clan machine gun boats. There's potential here to give RACs a brutal, component-wrecking niche of their own, rather than having them compete with conventional DPS-oriented weapons.

Edited by 0Jiggs0, 10 February 2018 - 12:16 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

0Jiggs0, on 10 February 2018 - 12:15 AM, said:

Slow firing, hard hitting launchers sounds good for both sides, but why not add a little flavor? Buff the velocity and damage of the IS missiles further than the Clan versions, but give the Clans their "hook shot" back.

Yea!!

0Jiggs0, on 10 February 2018 - 12:15 AM, said:

If this goes through, my dual-RAC2 Marauder is coming out of retirement! That said, I have an alternate suggestion: Give RACs crit damage bonuses similar to machine guns, making them the IS counterpart to Clan machine gun boats. There's potential here to give RACs a brutal, component-wrecking niche of their own, rather than having them compete with conventional DPS-oriented weapons.

NOOOO

If that's the case then we have to adjust for the upfront damage, which can leave it just bad when dealing with armor, which is generally most of the combat.

[Navid A1]

Kin3ticX, on 09 February 2018 - 11:56 PM, said:

so the vanilla AC2 does like 2.8 DPS and you are proposing the Rac2 does 8DPS from ~5 right now. wow. What does that put the jam adjusted DPS of the Rac2 at? Without knowing what the jam adjusted DPS on the ultra-2 and the rac2 from testing I dunno if the weapon pecking orders will make any sense. (but I also dont think PGI will do anything from that list anyways)

Vanilla AC2's used to do 4DPS but they were nerfed becuz reasons. They were barely viable but apparently there was an AC2 massacre at the bottom feeder tier because people just stand there like turrets and take it. That or AC2 was breaking ghost heat and the programmer than made it all quit or something. A similar logic may be dictating what they do with RACs.

Don't forget about the old super quirked dragon with the 50% cooldown quirk. It was pumping a solid ~18 DPS with just 2x AC5 and even then it was pretty situational. 24DPS with 2xRot5 might be a lil crazy considering its not even superquirked, even if its for a few seconds at a time. You risk messing with the pecking orders if the jam adjusted DPS is way way above a vanilla AC5.

Not all of those numbers will make it. those are the things we're going to discuss about.

besides... even after all those changes, the sustained dps will be around 3.5 after that initial jam free burst period of RAC2.

[Lionheart2012]

In general, I think it is a dubious proposition to initiate a so-called community-driven balance pass, and to submit a "consensus proposal," when very little of the community is involved and when there is very little consensus to be had. We are in need of hard data to support this initiative.

Nevertheless, I have analyzed the proposal, and I find it needs adjustment. No to PPC/Gauss rollback. Dubious on whether roll back ghost heat on 20-class autocannons. No to decreasing crits on the ISLB-20X. Additionally, the balance pass did not appear to follow a lore or analytic-based paradigm to arrive at the new values for damage, cooldown, duration, or heat adjustments. I have done this, and my explanations can be found in the video.



Google doc below

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Feel free to comment.

[0Jiggs0]

The6thMessenger, on 10 February 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

If that's the case then we have to adjust for the upfront damage, which can leave it just bad when dealing with armor, which is generally most of the combat.

No doubt it could be a bad idea, but I'm curious now. The RAC2 has roughly the same DPS as 4 HMGs, but without the crit damage bonuses and a 540 meter optimal range. If the RAC2 were given crit damage bonuses to match the crit damage output of 4 HMGs, how would this affect gameplay? A 500 meter crit-seeker may provide a counter to laser-heavy builds by destroying their weapons and heat sinks. Again, maybe a bad idea, but it seems like a good time to draw outside the lines a little.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah sure we'll tweet Russ and ask him to nerf buildings, buildings OP. That will fix LRMs.

actually destructible terrain would help fix LRMs

being able to dodge behind invincible rocks and buildings is part of the problem

a missile barrage should tear a building apart

[Navid A1]

Lionheart2012, on 10 February 2018 - 01:56 AM, said:

In general, I think it is a dubious proposition to initiate a so-called community-driven balance pass, and to submit a "consensus proposal," when very little of the community is involved and when there is very little consensus to be had. We are in need of hard data to support this initiative.

Nevertheless, I have analyzed the proposal, and I find it needs adjustment. No to PPC/Gauss rollback. Dubious on whether roll back ghost heat on 20-class autocannons. No to decreasing crits on the ISLB-20X. Additionally, the balance pass did not appear to follow a lore or analytic-based paradigm to arrive at the new values for damage, cooldown, duration, or heat adjustments. I have done this, and my explanations can be found in the video.


Google doc below

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Feel free to comment.

Only paying attention to dps/ton without considering anything else is not the way balance is done.
You are comparing weapons which are fundamentally different by using just 1 metric!

while dps per ton is a useful metric for a limited number of weapons, you have to consider how that dps is being delivered?... is it pinpoint?... does it spread?... which weapons on which chassis are its direct rivals.... what is the range?... how many can be put on a single chassis.... how is the heat efficiency?... how well a weapon syncs with another.... etc

without taking into account those analysis, you will end up with a single metric which can produce results that very far off from reality (e.g. HGauss being a very powerful weapon, while its down on the bottom of your list)

My overall assessment of your method is that... it generates unreliable results in complete contrast to reality.

Edited by Navid A1, 10 February 2018 - 04:37 AM.

[HammerMaster]

There is no "noob tube" in Battletech. Stop balancing LRM around the "noob tube" concept. All these band-aid suggestions perpetuate LRM shame and hate. Without a total overhaul, LRM in all tiers will be trash. Stop it.
I'll reiterate:
Remove free C3 lock on.
Increase velocity/ reduce spread while IN LINE OF SIGHT!
This needs a total rethink to include smacking down Jesus box ECM.
Make viable in all tiers.
If you're not aware that it's powerful in tier 5 and situational at best in tier 1. I don't know what MWO you're playing.

[Navid A1]

HammerMaster, on 10 February 2018 - 04:15 AM, said:

There is no "noob tube" in Battletech. Stop balancing LRM around the "noob tube" concept. All these band-aid suggestions perpetuate LRM shame and hate. Without a total overhaul, LRM in all tiers will be trash. Stop it.
I'll reiterate:
Remove free C3 lock on.
Increase velocity/ reduce spread while IN LINE OF SIGHT!
This needs a total rethink to include smacking down Jesus box ECM.
Make viable in all tiers.
If you're not aware that it's powerful in tier 5 and situational at best in tier 1. I don't know what MWO you're playing.

To be honest, we were discussing tighter tracking and faster turning for LRMs when the launcher itself had LOS to the target. Its even mentioned in the document.

generally, balancing guided missiles like LRMs and ATMs with just basic stats is hard... they either become an annoyance or completely useless!

[Bud Crue]

Lionheart2012, on 10 February 2018 - 01:56 AM, said:

Feel free to comment.

You lost me in the first few seconds.
1) Balance is not fine and your suggestion that there is no evidence to suggest we need a re-balance effort is absurd on its face. Why has PGI nerfed something nearly every month since May? All that nerffing done because balance is great? I think not.

Go in to your mech lab. Look at your mechs. Tell me, how many have mixed builds? How many are using all of those disparate hard points? IHow many run just one weapon and what is the most predominant weapon? Lots of IS PPCs? Big ISSL fan? Somehow I doubt it. You and I both know the answers to these questions without looking. There's your evidence of weapon imbalance.

2) Your crack about only a few comp players driving this effort is just ignorant. Look at this thread, look at the Reddit one, look up the stats of some of the folks expressing support. Plenty of us scrubs are interested and supportive of this effort.

With that much bias shown at the start of the video I had no reason to watch further.

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 10 February 2018 - 04:24 AM, said:

To be honest, we were discussing tighter tracking and faster turning for LRMs when the launcher itself had LOS to the target. Its even mentioned in the document.

generally, balancing guided missiles like LRMs and ATMs with just basic stats is hard... they either become an annoyance or completely useless!

The problem is adding skill to a skill-less homing weapon -- i get that positioning is important, but the problem is that it's even more dependent to the enemy's positioning than user's positioning to flourish. I mean almost always the ones ripped apart by LRMs are those out of position.

So really the question is, how can we put more weight to skill?

Spoiler

I say make the shots a LOT more important by more damage and slower rate of fire -- and add distance-based tracking-strength. That means at long range it has less missile fidelity, and would require NARC and/or TAG + Artemis to make them much more effective.

[tokumboh]

YueFei, on 09 February 2018 - 07:08 PM, said:

With regards to Gauss+PPC combinations:
Gauss current velocity is 2000 m/s, cERPPC is 1500 m/s. Assuming you take full velocity nodes, that's a +15% boost, making both of them 2300 m/s and 1725 m/s, respectively.

Against a target at 500 meters, the Gauss will hit in 217 ms, and the PPC would hit at 289 ms. It's a difference of 72 ms.

A target with 2 meter-wide hitboxes (for reference the Atlas torso hitboxes are about 2.4 meters wide), in order to guarantee that a simultaneous shot with perfect convergence were to strike two different hitboxes, would need to be moving laterally at 27.7 m/s (100 kph). Of course, a slight imprecision (say, Gauss hits dead-center of a side torso hitbox, instead of on the edge of the hitbox) and the following PPC bolt would strike the adjacent hitbox (arm or CT) if the target is moving even 50 kph.

Basically, it's OK to allow combinations of Gauss+PPC, and if counter-play to spread damage via lateral movement is not possible in actual play/testing, then differentiate the two weapons by further velocity changes, perhaps by slight buffs to Gauss velocity.

The problem is that you would need to be moving laterally at 50kmph that is pretty hard to see that happening. If you are a brawler you would eed to close to within brawling range on most of the maps games tend to have a mid to long range fight sequence and hence short range builds are rarely seen on 70T heavies because otherwise you are losing the ability to cause damage and participate in fights

Some maps and game modes basically make it impossible to get close because there is little cover in crossing the chasm. River City and frozen City are two that spring to mind especially. It basically means in PUG QP queue you go for a more generic mid to long range build most of the time unless you are fast and/or small hence the argument about the unfunning.

two thing in my mind need to happen. and while this is a bit left field there needs to be better demarcation between skill levels. At the moment there is not because of low population and basically because the matchmaker is not very good at the best of times. Even in high population timeslots I have seen tier 1 and tier 5 in the same games indeed I see famous streamers from time to time that are definitely in tier 1 in games when I was a tier 5. The second problem is the maps tend to favour a certain style and this is often reinforced by the fact that even in MWOWC you get teams choosing one map continuously and if not forced would essentially only chose a map with long range trading as a basic staple

essentially If these guys were choosing the for the majority we would have a very choices since the competitive scene is about meta and thus few choices and styles of play

So we need to mindful of what the problems are.

The other thing is that do we want a fast paced shooter or a slower paced shooter it is not clear.