1125 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

BreakinStuff, on 24 February 2018 - 09:16 AM, said:

Then you run face-first into the old problem:

No One will use it.

Lore is great and all but it needs to take a backseat to fun.

And once again, "fun" is subjective. I personally would love PPCs having an implementation of the field inhibitor in addition to the expanded abilities as I mentioned above.

The6thMessenger, on 24 February 2018 - 03:31 PM, said:

... consensus ..

I'm just nitpicking here, but I don't like that word -- and "community" -- being used when it only really relates to a few people.

End of nitpicking.

Edited by Mystere, 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Or you know, as weapons for light cause they don't have much tonnage, weapons for brawl, C-ERML runs too hot and has long beam duration. The point is that, C-ERSLs and C-SPLs are Clan lasers for brawl, where the C-ERML and C-MPL is for poking -- with C-MPL borderline brawl.

And i'm pretty sure that IS-SLs and SPLs already have no ghost-heat limit.

Again with your one-dimensional thinking.

You are wrong as usual.

Brawling with clan smalls sucks because of the ghost heat limits.

Like the microlaser being limited at 8. Thats terrible. How does that help energy pirahnas compete with machine gun pirahnas? theres no reason microlasers should even have a ghost heat limit.

Or clan small lasers/small pulses being limited at 6. again why? theres no point in using them.

Obviously small lasers should be better at brawling than medium lasers. I do not need you to tell me that. lmao. But the fact is small lasers are garbage ATM.

Using my "imagination" is not going to make them good. This isnt the neverending story.

Quote

And once again, "fun" is subjective. I personally would love PPCs having an implementation of the field inhibitor in addition to the expanded abilities as I mentioned above.

I dont like the idea of PPCs having zero damage deadzones or damage feedback though.

I would just make PPCs fired within 90m scramble both your HUD as well as the enemy HUD. Thats the only downside PPCs fired within 90m need.

Edited by Khobai, 24 February 2018 - 03:56 PM.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

I dont like the idea of PPCs having zero damage deadzones or damage feedback though.

I would just make PPCs fired within 90m disrupt both your HUD as well as the enemy HUD.

I think you completely missed the "expanded abilities" part of my posts: better PPCs but with additional risks. Think of it as a "risk vs. reward" thing.

Edited by Mystere, 24 February 2018 - 03:45 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 24 February 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

I'm just nitpicking here, but I don't like that word -- and "community" -- being used when it only really relates to a few people.

I'm sorry if it's something you don't like. But that is the changes they are supposedly pushing for, and that is what we were discussing.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

You are wrong as usual.

Lol no, you're just one-dimensionally thinking as usual.

I mean, what does the C-ERML have for brawling, don't you think that it runs too hot and it's beam is too long for such a role? And don't you think that C-MPL has too far of an optimum range to just anchor it to brawl-range?

Honestly, stop with your narrow-minded crap and look at things at a grander scale.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

Brawling with clan smalls sucks because of the ghost heat limits.

Looks like someone forgot to add it on SRMs, as backup, and people doesn't even need to maximize weapon GH limits.

Even then, people can still pull it off, like with Nova. There's also the heat, the pin-point and good convergence that comes with it.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

Like the microlaser being limited at 8. Thats terrible. How does that help energy pirahnas compete with machine gun pirahnas? theres no reason microlasers should even have a ghost heat limit.

Because it doesn't use ammo. Also we're kind of in agreement that it should have higher ghost heat to 12. But it's not because it's supposed to compete with C-ERML, that's just wrong.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

Or clan small pulses being limited at 6. again why? there is no point in using them.

Because C-SPL used to do 36 damage at once, until PGI ****** it up. Now before, C-SPL has longer range than IS counterparts, with mechs having a lot of hardpoints too. If anything, C-SPL just needs a damage buff.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

Obviously small lasers should be better at brawling than medium lasers. I do not need you to tell me that. lmao. But the fact is small lasers are garbage ATM.

Then buff their immediate stats, not make people use more all at once, come on.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

Using my "imagination" is not going to make them good. This isnt the neverending story.

Stop bullshitting us with the highroad. The problem is that you're not seeing how they could be used, instead you are forcing them on uses that they weren't supposed to do. Recent example of that is you just looking at medium and small lasers at alpha damage, where they have different range brackets to fill.

Yes, this is a never ending story if you're too narrowminded.

Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

I dont like the idea of PPCs having zero damage deadzones or damage feedback though.

I would just make PPCs fired within 90m disrupt both your HUD as well as the enemy HUD.

That's really the point, and if you don't like it, too bad.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 February 2018 - 04:20 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 24 February 2018 - 03:31 PM, said:

How could it be more heat-efficient? HPPC does 14.5 heat/shot with current, 14.5 Heat/shot with the consensus, that means currently HPPC does 9.666667 heat for the same 10 damage, while the PPC only does 9.5 heat, and the new consensus of 13.5 does 9 heat for 10 dps, where the PPC does 8.


Do you mean it overheats faster? So what, it does better damage/heat right? What if people can just choose the 3x PPC route if they have spare tonnage and heat? I mean lots of people go for hot builds too because they can handle it right?

I derped my math, was thinking that 8x 3 was 27 for some sh*tty reason. At 8 heat each, though, actually better heat efficiency. Perhaps slightly too much better.

That said, some people go for hot builds because they don't know any better.

Quote

I think it's fine as a Jack-Of-All-Trades as an individual weapon it's something that just works, something so general that it's not exactly the choice for min-maxing, just a choice for bracket-builds that would work well with most other weapons. It's not really about giving it a specific role, but at least it could do the roles of the other PPCs.

If it's too generally good, though, we don't take the other flavors because not every role is weighted evenly in MWO. Brawl, for example, is much harder to do than poke or power position, so if our PPC is giving up some of its brawling potential in favor of better poke then it's not really giving up as much as the SN PPC is to be better in a brawl.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

I derped my math, was thinking that 8x 3 was 27 for some sh*tty reason. At 8 heat each, though, actually better heat efficiency. Perhaps slightly too much better.

That said, some people go for hot builds because they don't know any better.

Hot builds like Vomits?

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

If it's too generally good, though, we don't take the other flavors because not every role is weighted evenly in MWO. Brawl, for example, is much harder to do than poke or power position, so if our PPC is giving up some of its brawling potential in favor of better poke then it's not really giving up as much as the SN PPC is to be better in a brawl.

Kinda why i advocate for SNPPC having the most heat efficiency of the bunch, it's also lighter than PPC so that's something to consider. PPCs still would have it's 540m optimal range for it.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 February 2018 - 04:19 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 24 February 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:

Hot builds like Vomits?

Even with laser vomit there are limits. There is a reason you don't see the 57-point version on Warhammers or the 55-point version on Battlemasters and Banshees all that much; too hot. Even with Clans, you don't actually see the 78-point version much for the same reason.

Quote

Kinda why i advocate for SNPPC having the most heat efficiency of the bunch, it's also lighter than PPC so that's something to consider. PPCs still would have it's 540m optimal range for it.

I don't really see the PPC and SN-PPC overlapping enough to make the weight difference worth anything. I use Snubs with SRMs and MGs; I would not use a PPC there even if it weighed 6 tons because I need there to be no min-range.

I think the PPC and SN-PPC having identical stats outside of range and cooldown is enough to differentiate them if they both run at 8-8.5 heat. The PPC's largest threat comes from the HPPC.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

Even with laser vomit there are limits. There is a reason you don't see the 57-point version on Warhammers or the 55-point version on Battlemasters and Banshees all that much; too hot. Even with Clans, you don't actually see the 78-point version much for the same reason.

Yeah but, the luxury of 3x 10 PPFLD, done every 4s, that's something right?

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

I don't really see the PPC and SN-PPC overlapping enough to make the weight difference worth anything. I use Snubs with SRMs and MGs; I would not use a PPC there even if it weighed 6 tons because I need there to be no min-range.

I see, so PPCs ain't worth the bonus range?

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 24 February 2018 - 05:36 PM, said:

Yeah but, the luxury of 3x 10 PPFLD, done every 4s, that's something right?

Not really; the heat for both it and HPPC pigeonholes both into trade role, and the 1 extra second doesn't matter there. For some context, the extra second on the cERPPC matters more because the cERPPC often finds itself in fights up close where it does matter.

Otherwise, we're both going to be in cover.

See also: reasons why the LPL is meh.

Quote

I see, so PPCs ain't worth the bonus range?

Not on any build I'd use with Snubs, no. But that's a subset of possible builds

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 24 February 2018 - 06:15 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 06:15 PM, said:

Not really; the heat for both it and HPPC pigeonholes both into trade role, and the 1 extra second doesn't matter there. For some context, the extra second on the cERPPC matters more because the cERPPC often finds itself in fights up close where it does matter.

Otherwise, we're both going to be in cover.

See also: reasons why the LPL is meh.

I see.

So the problem is that we want to fit PPC in the mindset of min-maxing? What's why it doesn't have a spot?

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 06:15 PM, said:

Not on any build I'd use with Snubs, no. But that's a subset of possible builds

Possible builds is fine.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 24 February 2018 - 06:22 PM, said:

I see.

So the problem is that we want to fit PPC in the mindset of min-maxing? What's why it doesn't have a spot?

Essentially, yes. Weapons that don't really fit in any min-maxed builds tend to get left behind, even in QP. Don't really see any SPLs in QP. Don't see many LPLs anymore, either. It's almost always ER/ML, MPL LL, HLL, Gauss, UAC/10, UAC/5, UAC/2, MRMs, ATMs, with LRMs as the trend-bucker. ERPPC are difficult to use and aren't common, but do have a place.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 February 2018 - 06:37 PM, said:

Essentially, yes. Weapons that don't really fit in any min-maxed builds tend to get left behind, even in QP. Don't really see any SPLs in QP. Don't see many LPLs anymore, either. It's almost always ER/ML, MPL LL, HLL, Gauss, UAC/10, UAC/5, UAC/2, MRMs, ATMs, with LRMs as the trend-bucker. ERPPC are difficult to use and aren't common, but do have a place.

Hmm, i honestly don't see the point in trying to make it fit the mind-set of min-maxing, it's smack-dab in the middle of the entire series of PPCs, have it do something well it could tread at the niche of either, it's a moot point.

Maybe the problem itself is the mindset of min-maxing, we need to make bracket-builds great again if standard PPCs ever were to have popularity.

So with that sentiment, i guess the only thing we could do for the PPC is to be just decent in being a generalist, jack-of-all-trades thing, the PPC with no real strengths or weaknesses.

[Reno Blade]

Imho, I would prefere to have PPCs with different damage/range profiles that have range dependent splash portions.
Note: Splash portion would reduce the advanteage of the PPFLD if the Laser classes would be harder to use (e.g. longer beam durations).

see my sig for complete weapon balancing (focus for harder weapon damage applicaion).

quote from here: https://mwomercs.com...ng-3060-weapons

PPC Splash distribution (E-4) with graphs!
The latest table above just shows 2 splash dmg for PPC(8+1+1), SNPPC(8+1+1) and HPPC(13+1+1) for simplicity

Spoiler

I've tried to make each PPC unique and make HPPC a mix of multiple profiles that is worth taking over combining any of the other PPCs (e.g. LPPCs with PPCs).

PPC / LPPC


ERPPC / SNPPC


CERPPC / HPPC

PPCs are great for mid-long range and have 0 dmg min range
LPPCs have constant ratio and 0 dmg min range (so they are less efficient on mid-long range)
ERPPCs have highest direct damage (100%) on long-extreme only and have high splash on shorter range
CERPPCs is using increasing direct damage, but has good averages
HPPCs have some splash at min range, but get high direct damage overall (more than combinations of other types)
SNPPCs start with high direct damage but drop off quickly and also have a shorter range and damage drop


If using constant ratios, my suggestion would be this:

Spoiler

That way you get more total damage from HPPC and still can combine quite nicely the LPPC with the other types and also not making multiple LPPCs stronger than the other types (considering 2x LPPC would be 6+2+2 and normal PPC would be 8+1+1).

[Asym]

48 pages of this? Seriously, are you guys that bored?

There can not be balance in the game and there never should be balance in the game because the story underlying the entire game is about the the lack of balance itself.......this is a "cold war" paradigm.

No one at PGI is reading this: they don't care....... SOLARIS is the death of teams and team centric play.... There can only be balance in Solaris if every weapon system is nerf'd into ineffectiveness so TTK takes 15 minutes or you run out of ammunition or have to take a wiz.....

[Koniving]

Tarogato, on 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

And do remember that this is concerning weapon balance only, which is only a single slice of the pie. There are other things that should probably be addressed by PGI:

- Mech quirks
- Mech mobility
- Overbearing consumables
- Skill Tree as a whole (ie., are enough people unhappy to justify significant changes?)
- New player experience (hey, it’s still not good)
- Matchmaking (the PSR system is fundamentally broken as it stands)

Any of the above could be topics for a dedicated community effort to provide direct feedback to PGI on how they should be handled. But for now, ONE THING AT A TIME. First thing is weapon balance only.
So on that topic, FLY MY PRETTIES. LET LOOSE YOUR FEEDBACK.

I wasn't going to even bother putting anything in due to my lack of faith in PGI actually making any changes. However... I have decided to contribute due to the "balance LRMs by tier 4" debacle.

As such, here is my carefully thought-out contribution:
This is specifically for LRMs, however one may feel free to apply this to any missiles that may need it (my experience with ATMs is too limited to comment there).

• Increase the speed of LRMs to be effective to their stated ranges with the ideal goal of being able to reach their maximum range within 1.3 seconds or less.
  
  • (Edit: For comparison, their current speed is 160 meters/second, meaning in order to reach their 900 meter range it will take 5.625 seconds right now.
    
  • A much larger traditional cruise missile travels at 245 meters per second which weighs 2,900 lbs per missile (1.45 tons) Missiles in MWO are approximately 1.11 lbs and that cruise missile has the weight of 261 LRMs... There is no reason for it to be even THAT slow.)
    
  • The Stinger Missile, which is a missile of the described size that LRMs are in lore, is 750 meters per second. This speed coincidentally would reach 900 meters in 1.2 seconds.
• Decrease their agility (turning range) and lock their turning speed (in the past through a particular trick, one could make LRMs perform a completely 180 within a single "turning tick" which is a specific point of the missile flight path in which it makes a course correction, which was an old 2013 trick to make LRMs turn corners; since then their speed has forbidden this from being possible between lock time and flight time, but I would like to see these missiles have the 'guidance difficulty' that LRMs are known for).
  
  • The idea behind this is to make LRMs much more useful at long range as they are intended to be as well as be more effective against heavier targets that can withstand the abuse of LRMs.
    
  • It is also meant to allow more agile mechs to dodge said missiles due to their limited ability to adjust and follow the target, akin to what is shown in this short video. Note how FAST the missiles are. Time index 1:42 to 1:50 (even with that speed, which is much faster than today's missiles, they were still much slower than I would prefer). I wouldn't mind them going up like they did back then, too, as the default indirect fire behavior as opposed to the direct fire behavior.
• For Artemis-enhanced LRMs, this locked range of turning capability should be reasonably to significantly wider (depending on the implementation of the following bullet points), making the extra weight worth while.
  
  • Artemis enhanced LRMs, like ATMs, should be capable of enough agility to track and attempt to catch even light mechs at a distance, with it becoming increasingly difficult the closer a faster light moving at full speed gets.
• Artemis LRMs should be slightly slower, but under no circumstances should it take longer than 1.4 seconds to reach their maximum distance.
  
• Change non-Artemis LRMs to fire and forget. Require new locks every time (this behavior should actually be done to all lock on weapons but wait for that at the next senior bullet point).
  
  • I'm aware that as a consequence this means that Streaks and ATMs would also have the same behavior as well as Artemis LRMs.
    
  • The idea here is to increase the skill quotient and player involvement from "Camp in one spot and hold fire button, yawn and read a book" to "C'mon c'mon lock, YES GOT IT! Fire! C'mon, lock again lock again" in order to make the gameplay using them be much more engaging.
    
  • This would also fight against chainfire missile spam, since any missile lock would be removed once you fire, preventing harassment builds that annoy players and shower them in blinding light. (PGI did the same to flamers, so why not here?)
    
  • Finally this would improve their utility in non-boat applications, as having just one or so missile launchers would allow players the ability to use said missile launchers and then twist to protect themselves whenever necessary rather than "STARING" at the enemy until they are two-shotted by laser vomit or unable to defend themselves [and actually hit something] against enemy AC fire.
• Modify Artemis LRMs with an additional indicator. After all, Artemis LRMs in lore require line of sight as in fact it has a laser target designator that helps to guide the missiles. (You can check Sarna, Battletech Compendium, Tech Manual, and virtually any other source for confirmation). As such Artemis-LRM would be the only version of LRM that requires the player to maintain line of sight for the heightened accuracy (though it, too, can be looked away from for 'standard' accuracy).
  
  • If the above two bullet points are implemented, make sure Artemis's turning capabilities are significant enough to make up for the line of sight requirement as opposed to standard LRMs being fire and completely forget.
    
  • As a consequence, ATMs which have Artemis as part of its system regardless of whether you have it or not, would also require the same line of sight for enhanced accuracy (as they already should need, actually).
    
  • Again if the two aforementioned senior bullet points are implemented: Please REMOVE Artemis's accelerated lock on time, thus also fixing Streak's unintended +25% weightless lockon acceleration caused by having Artemis 'toggled on' in the mechlab. Finally fixing the "Streak boat" and its unintended superiority given only to those whom are aware of this exploit.

My only other request is that SRMs also be given the ability to lock and some limited tracking ability with limited agility, as many mechs include NARC-enabled and TAG-enabled SRMs. The Kintaro in particular carries NARC-enabled SRMs with its NARC launcher. PGI has made LRMs include Homing LRMs (Tag-enabled) and NARC-enabled LRMs alongisde standard LRMs as a single LRM package. Our SRMs should also have the same treatment. That would make the SRMs lore-accurate, in addition to having the "missile shotgun" ability that past mechwarrior games have provided.


Note if the above paragraph were implemented, then unlike Streaks, which PGI has given impossible agility, SRMs would not have that, and neither would SRMs be unable to fire without a lock, unlike Streaks.

Thank you for your consideration. I am open to this feedback receiving its own feedback, suggestions, etc.
This will be my only contribution to this balancing attempt, as anything else would require us to flip MWO upside down and shake it violently.

Edited by Koniving, 25 February 2018 - 03:23 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

I get people are in their opinion trying to make the game fun from their point of very, but to use words like the community and consensus is wrong.

Their isn't even a consensus with forumites, let along trying to encompass the whole of the community.

what this actually is, a very small percentage of people les than one percent of the player base, have decided to push for changes they want regardless of the effects to other peoples enjoyment.

I would strongly suggest that these very small number of people actually go out there and get a consensus before they act, unless they intend to take on the financial and legal liabilities these changes could make if they're not as popular as they might believe.

[The6thMessenger]

Cathy, on 25 February 2018 - 09:02 AM, said:

I get people are in their opinion trying to make the game fun from their point of very, but to use words like the community and consensus is wrong.

Their isn't even a consensus with forumites, let along trying to encompass the whole of the community.

what this actually is, a very small percentage of people les than one percent of the player base, have decided to push for changes they want regardless of the effects to other peoples enjoyment.

I would strongly suggest that these very small number of people actually go out there and get a consensus before they act, unless they intend to take on the financial and legal liabilities these changes could make if they're not as popular as they might believe.

Tarogato asked both the MWO forums and Reddit, and compiled their responses. If some people didn't joined in then that's not exactly their fault.

Even then, a small sample can be representative of the population, such as in statistics only interviewing 100 to 10000 people at a time, when there's a population of millions in a country, billions in our planet.

[BreakinStuff]

Cathy, on 25 February 2018 - 09:02 AM, said:

I get people are in their opinion trying to make the game fun from their point of very, but to use words like the community and consensus is wrong.

Their isn't even a consensus with forumites, let along trying to encompass the whole of the community.

what this actually is, a very small percentage of people les than one percent of the player base, have decided to push for changes they want regardless of the effects to other peoples enjoyment.

I would strongly suggest that these very small number of people actually go out there and get a consensus before they act, unless they intend to take on the financial and legal liabilities these changes could make if they're not as popular as they might believe.

I believe that this is the point of the thread, to get as much human input as people are willing to contribute.

I've done similar for other games, and it worked.

Player-projected alterations are often far more on the mark for the fun in the game than balance-by metrics.

From a pattern-matching standpoint, looking at what these guys are proposing, the numbers jive. This all makes sense to me, and it's in-line with my thoughts if not identical to how I would handle things.

But the incremental, small changes proposed are really the best way to go about player-propositions with developers with good notes on WHY you are proposing changes.

[Tarogato]

Cathy, on 25 February 2018 - 09:02 AM, said:

I get people are in their opinion trying to make the game fun from their point of very, but to use words like the community and consensus is wrong.

Their isn't even a consensus with forumites, let along trying to encompass the whole of the community.

what this actually is, a very small percentage of people les than one percent of the player base, have decided to push for changes they want regardless of the effects to other peoples enjoyment.

I would strongly suggest that these very small number of people actually go out there and get a consensus before they act, unless they intend to take on the financial and legal liabilities these changes could make if they're not as popular as they might believe.

Exactly which weapons changes would you want removed, and why?

(reference the spreadsheet, because the word doc is not up to date at the moment)

[Kin3ticX]

Koniving, on 25 February 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

I wasn't going to even bother putting anything in due to my lack of faith in PGI actually making any changes. However... I have decided to contribute due to the "balance LRMs by tier 4" debacle.

It's not a debacle. What Paul said about that was true. Buff LRMs to be viable for everyone and there will be an LRM apocalypse in the bottom feeder tiers.

Rest of post had too much word salad to bother reading. You lost me at "because IRL a cruise missile would"