1125 replies to this topic

[Johnathan Von Tanner]

visionGT4, on 07 February 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~
lets see if PGI can get over themselves and take the feedback on board

lol

[Kamikaze Viking]

Amazing work Tarogato and crew!

I really hope PGI implement this as a whole package. And then the team can easily make incremental small tweaks if PGI come to the party and implement a short pipeline for this.

Every pattern recognition instinct I have, combined with mech building and drop planning experience tells me these suggestions should make the game FUN again and encourage many more viable mech build options for EVERYONE.

[N0MAD]

@OP.
You guys have made a fundamental mistake from the get go, you want to balance but ignore that there is more than one factor that will affect your balance changes,eg Quirks.
If you cant see that with any broad weapons changes there needs to be extensive quirk changes being applied at the same time then you arent seeing the full picture, making any of your suggestions well pointless as far as balance goes.
I see that you say that you will look at other aspects of the game later on but this is silly, not balancing all relevant factors at the same time IMO is just pointless and prone to bigger problems later.

In summary you guys have blinkers on and not looking at the whole picture, that wont lead to balance, FFS thats what PGI does wears blinkers. Look most you guys are smart and know the game well, no doubt, but on this you guys arent looking at the whole picture, IMO.

[sycocys]

Consumables need to take up at least 1 slot and tonnage for each charge.
- A similar system would be a decent way to start to balance the skill node system since they have no concept of using it to create specializations and roles within the tree itself.

You aren't going to get anywhere balancing energy weapons (especially lasers) until you implement minimum range roll-offs because almost everyone has been so dead set against an effective heat penalty or any sort of P.P. convergence altering/breaking systems.

SRMs need their skill shot flight patterns back.

The tonnage for IS ballistics would probably be the best place to start for making them more viable as its the primary thing that makes them not for most mechs.

[Y E O N N E]

I made a post on Reddit. I'm not going to copy it here because it's 5 words shy of 2,000 and even Reddit made me break it up, but here's the link.

Kamikaze Viking, on 07 February 2018 - 10:33 PM, said:

Every pattern recognition instinct I have, combined with mech building and drop planning experience tells me these suggestions should make the game FUN again and encourage many more viable mech build options for EVERYONE.

Don't be too quick to sing its praises. There are a lot of duds in there, including:

• Failure to at all address disparities in heat efficiency between Clan and IS
  
• Failure to address the synergistic effects of superior range and damage on Clan lasers
  
• An over-valuation of the one less shell in isUAC/10 and isUAC/20 volleys keeping the ranges lower than they should be
  
• Making LGauss even less relevant by buffing the DPS on Gauss
  
• Leaving isMGs still woefully underpowered on any 'Mech you want to use them on and relying on the extremely annoying crit effect even more

It also really worries me that bear_cl4w was involved at all. He did his own personal pass on lasers not too long ago and demonstrated in one go that he really doesn't understand the interplay among equipment or how to actually define roles. He knows how to use what's in the game now, but that's not enough. And what's worse is that he has enough of a chip on his shoulder that he does the PGI thing and dismisses criticism as people just disagreeing with his vision.

N0MAD, on 07 February 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

@OP.
You guys have made a fundamental mistake from the get go, you want to balance but ignore that there is more than one factor that will affect your balance changes,eg Quirks.
If you cant see that with any broad weapons changes there needs to be extensive quirk changes being applied at the same time then you arent seeing the full picture, making any of your suggestions well pointless as far as balance goes.
I see that you say that you will look at other aspects of the game later on but this is silly, not balancing all relevant factors at the same time IMO is just pointless and prone to bigger problems later.

In summary you guys have blinkers on and not looking at the whole picture, that wont lead to balance, FFS thats what PGI does wears blinkers. Look most you guys are smart and know the game well, no doubt, but on this you guys arent looking at the whole picture, IMO.

The word you are looking for is "blinders" and they did consider quirks. That's why the balance changes essentially amount to little more than reverting the game to a state roughly similar to 12 months ago. There was really nothing dramatic in that write-up.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 07 February 2018 - 11:15 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 February 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

Making LGauss even less relevant by buffing the DPS on Gauss

I'm kinda worried about that too, and why they don't see the option of 10 damage 810m range LGR with 2.5s cooldown + 0.75s charge time. AC10 would still have better damage output due to better DPS, it will still out-perform powerful lasers at a range, and would have good DPS versus the new Gauss with better DPS.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 07 February 2018 - 11:09 PM, said:

I'm kinda worried about that too, and why they don't see the option of 10 damage 810m range LGR with 2.5s cooldown + 0.75s charge time. AC10 would still have better damage output due to better DPS, it will still out-perform powerful lasers at a range, and would have good DPS versus the new Gauss with better DPS.

TBQH, I don't want the 0.75 s charge time, not even for consistency. At that range, you really do want to be able to make a faster shot and the 0.5 second charge just feels right. 2.75 s cool-down with a 0.5 second charge would feel better IMHO.

But yeah, they are over-valuing the range there. It's not like the ERLL it's going to get paired with even reach that far without artificial assistance.

[The6thMessenger]

Could we all agree that RAC needs fixed shooting time, and shorter jam duration and dissipation? I mean we're already overextending as hell, we don't need to throw a dice to shoot for longer. Lets just make the RAC jam 100% at redline, and shorted the down-time. Also the RAC2 needs damage buff.

Yeonne Greene, on 07 February 2018 - 11:12 PM, said:

TBQH, I don't want the 0.75 s charge time, not even for consistency. At that range, you really do want to be able to make a faster shot and the 0.5 second charge just feels right. 2.75 s cool-down with a 0.5 second charge would feel better IMHO.

But yeah, they are over-valuing the range there. It's not like the ERLL it's going to get paired with even reach that far without artificial assistance.

Eh, so long as the sum is 3.25, i'm fine with the different CDs and charges. The LGR needs the damage, as shown as our current patch.

[N0MAD]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 February 2018 - 11:08 PM, said:

I made a post on Reddit. I'm not going to copy it here because it's 5 words shy of 2,000 and even Reddit made me break it up, but here's the link.



Don't be too quick to sing its praises. There are a lot of duds in there, including:

• Failure to at all address disparities in heat efficiency between Clan and IS
  
• Failure to address the synergistic effects of superior range and damage on Clan lasers
  
• An over-valuation of the one less shell in isUAC/10 and isUAC/20 volleys keeping the ranges lower than they should be
  
• Making LGauss even less relevant by buffing the DPS on Gauss
  
• Leaving isMGs still woefully underpowered on any 'Mech you want to use them on and relying on the extremely annoying crit effect even more

It also really worries me that bear_cl4w was involved at all. He did his own personal pass on lasers not too long ago and demonstrated in one go that he really doesn't understand the interplay among equipment or how to actually define roles. He knows how to use what's in the game now, but that's not enough. And what's worse is that he has enough of a chip on his shoulder that he does the PGI thing and dismisses criticism as people just disagreeing with his vision.





The word you are looking for is "blinders" and they did consider quirks. That's why the balance changes essentially amount to little more than reverting the game to a state roughly similar to 12 months ago. There was really nothing dramatic in that write-up.

I used the word i was looking for https://www.google.c...chrome&ie=UTF-8 , but thanks.
IMO.
Adjusting weapons values to weapons systems and not addressing other values [Quirks] that affect those weapons systems wont balance overall, it has the potential of creating monsters of some mechs with favorable quirks, that alone is one of the problems i foresee.
You want balance adjust all systems that have effect.

[Y E O N N E]

N0MAD, on 07 February 2018 - 11:34 PM, said:

I used the word i was looking for https://www.google.c...chrome&ie=UTF-8 , but thanks.
IMO.
Adjusting weapons values to weapons systems and not addressing other values [Quirks] that affect those weapons systems wont balance overall, it has the potential of creating monsters of some mechs with favorable quirks, that alone is one of the problems i foresee.
You want balance adjust all systems that have effect.

The quirks now are worse than the quirks from a year ago. Reverting weapons essentially to their better place from a year ago with the worse quirks of today still results in a less balanced game than we had a year ago. And make no mistake, it is less-balanced now.

The quirks are not what you should be worried about. The fact that the most glaring issues with base values on weapons were glossed over or ignored is far more concerning than the impact of the quirks.

[Sjorpha]

These changes look great for the most part.

The cac5 stands out as a weird change, as it looks like you're making it strictly better than the is ac5, and thus providing no tradeoff for being lighter and smaller. I'm not sure what that should be, as i honestly don't think clan should even have those weapons as they aren't canon and more of a failed attempt to simulate ammo swtching. Note that there is no similar placeholder weapon on the is side, a better suggestion imo would be to simply remove them from the game.

[El Bandito]

N0MAD, on 07 February 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

@OP.
You guys have made a fundamental mistake from the get go, you want to balance but ignore that there is more than one factor that will affect your balance changes,eg Quirks.
If you cant see that with any broad weapons changes there needs to be extensive quirk changes being applied at the same time then you arent seeing the full picture, making any of your suggestions well pointless as far as balance goes.
I see that you say that you will look at other aspects of the game later on but this is silly, not balancing all relevant factors at the same time IMO is just pointless and prone to bigger problems later.

In summary you guys have blinkers on and not looking at the whole picture, that wont lead to balance, FFS thats what PGI does wears blinkers. Look most you guys are smart and know the game well, no doubt, but on this you guys arent looking at the whole picture, IMO.

Naturally quirks should be removed or reduced along with, or right after the change. We need tech balance, not quirk crutches. We want as little quirk bandages as possible in order to reach optimum balance.

It is a big undertaking, but it has to happen.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 February 2018 - 11:41 PM.

[ramp4ge]

The problem I see here is that you have multi-generational tech that isn't allowed to obsolete previous generations of tech.

What you essentially have is a game that has a Sopwith Camel and an F-15, but the two have to find parity because one can't be allowed to replace the other entirely. The F-15 can't make the Sopwith Camel obsolete.

As much as tech balance is required, so is chassis balance. There are some mechs that you never, ever see because they are just flat broken and aren't good at anything and I think that's a serious issue too. I'm looking at you, Nightstar.

[Bombast]

N0MAD, on 07 February 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

@OP.
You guys have made a fundamental mistake from the get go, you want to balance but ignore that there is more than one factor that will affect your balance changes,eg Quirks.
If you cant see that with any broad weapons changes there needs to be extensive quirk changes being applied at the same time then you arent seeing the full picture, making any of your suggestions well pointless as far as balance goes.
I see that you say that you will look at other aspects of the game later on but this is silly, not balancing all relevant factors at the same time IMO is just pointless and prone to bigger problems later.

In summary you guys have blinkers on and not looking at the whole picture, that wont lead to balance, FFS thats what PGI does wears blinkers. Look most you guys are smart and know the game well, no doubt, but on this you guys arent looking at the whole picture, IMO.

They're coming at it one problem at a time. I imagine quirks will be the next 'project.'

My understanding, as it were (Do not take what I say here as fact. I don't want to put words in people's mouths), is that the goal after these weapon changes happen is to cut a lot of quirks out. The objective being to remove the 'minor' quirks by making the weapons good enough to not need them at all, then just quirking the chassis that actually do need all the help they can get, like Blackjacks or IS lights with next to no hardpoints.

[El Bandito]

ramp4ge, on 07 February 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

The problem I see here is that you have multi-generational tech that isn't allowed to obsolete previous generations of tech.

What you essentially have is a game that has a Sopwith Camel and an F-15, but the two have to find parity because one can't be allowed to replace the other entirely. The F-15 can't make the Sopwith Camel obsolete.

As much as tech balance is required, so is chassis balance. There are some mechs that you never, ever see because they are just flat broken and aren't good at anything and I think that's a serious issue too. I'm looking at you, Nightstar.

Chassis balance can be done right after tech balance. Right now we need a clear and well defined baseline, first.

[The Lighthouse]

I looked at the paper again, and suddenly I realized huge omissions.


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

Seriously.


I knew something was weird and off, and this is why.


So what are going to do? The biggest problem of these elements, other than IS XL side torso death, is that those upgrades and stuffs take additional critical space compared to Clan counterparts.

....

Just making IS XL side torso safe won't accomplish Clan vs IS balance to be honest. At least making IS DHS true dub would be also needed.

[Khobai]

yep. the balance issues arnt just weapon centric. engine/DHS/and FF/ES are all part of the imbalance too.

ISXL should survive side torso blowout

ISDHS should all be true dubs

and ISFF/ISES should give armor/structure bonuses

IS superquirks could be reduced then too

Quote

They're coming at it one problem at a time. I imagine quirks will be the next 'project.'

The best way to balance the two techbases is to start with the obvious. Focus on balancing the items where clans have a straight up advantage.

CXL is straight up better than ISXL
CES/CFF is straight up better than ISES/ISFF
CDHS are straight up better than ISDHS
Certain clan weapons are straight up better than their IS counterparts (i.e. clan gauss, cerml, etc..)

once the tech bases are evened out thats when you can reevaluate the need for quirks and start the fine tuning process for weapon balance.

Edited by Khobai, 08 February 2018 - 12:30 AM.

[Requiemking]

Khobai, on 08 February 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

ISXL should survive side torso blowout

Absolutely not. Doing this would render the LFE as completely pointless. Then again, this suggestion comes as no surprise considering who posted this.

Khobai, on 08 February 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

ISDHS should all be true dubs

Meh, I'm ambivalent

Khobai, on 08 February 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

and ISFF/ISES should give armor/structure bonuses

Sure, why not?

Khobai, on 08 February 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

IS superquirks could be reduced then too

Only on Chassis that don't need them anymore. Mech like the Vindicator and pretty much the entire Light roster will need them for a while yet.

Edited by Requiemking, 08 February 2018 - 12:24 AM.

[Bombast]

Khobai, on 08 February 2018 - 12:19 AM, said:

IS superquirks could be reduced then too

For some, maybe. For others, they need their mega quirks back - Blackjacks in particular could use a big quirk pump. And no matter what, Trebuchets need to keep their quirks, and most of them could probably use some more.

[Khobai]

Quote

Absolutely not. Doing this would render the LFE as completely pointless. Then again, this suggestion comes as no surprise considering who posted this.

nope it wouldnt.

ISXL = survives side torso destruction but suffers penalties

LFE = survives side torso destruction, doesnt suffer penalties, takes up less crit slots, and possibly gets a torso structure bonus.

STD = survives both side torsos being destroyed, doesnt suffer penalties, takes up the least crit slots, gives a heat dissipation/capacity bonus, and gets a larger torso structure bonus

wow its like theres a reason to use each type of engine then. thats balance.

Edited by Khobai, 08 February 2018 - 01:07 AM.