1125 replies to this topic

[Verilligo]

Khobai, on 09 February 2018 - 11:10 AM, said:

1) HGR and AC20 arnt really dps weapons. Theyre short range PPFLD weapons. As such they need to be stronger than long range PPFLD to justify their shorter range. long range PPFLD needs to stay capped at 30 damage so short range PPFLD can compete. otherwise the risk vs reward aspect just isnt there.

2) UAC20 is an example of a short range dps weapon. It does considerably more dps than the AC20 at the expense of PPFLD.

3) Not all close range weapons are DPS weapons. If the AC20 was a dps weapon it would do as much dps as the UAC20. It clearly doesnt. Becuase the purpose of the AC20 is PPFLD, not dps. Same with the HGR, its purpose is PPFLD, its not a dps weapon either.

1) If you increase the ghost heat of AC20s from 2 to 3, you end up dealing 40 damage PPFLD for 12 heat every 4s, or 10 DPS at 3 HPS. 2 GR/1 ERPPC is 40 damage PPFLD for 15.5 heat every (effectively) 5.5s, or 7.27 DPS at 2.81 HPS. It seems to me that would make 2 AC20s stronger already. The first option doesn't have range, but it's also 28 tons instead of 37 tons and the second option also has a wider margin to miss. The second option is also catastrophically explosive, which the first option usually doesn't have to worry about as much. At the end of the day, you're better off using the first option if you can close the range and can spare the 3 extra crit slots.

2) This is true, but.

3) This doesn't make any sense. Why must the AC20 not be a DPS weapon because the UAC20 is a better DPS weapon in your mind? They can both be considered DPS weapons. They both give high damage per second and per heat compared to weapons that do not, yes? The AC20 just happens to do it up front as well, something the UAC20 doesn't.

Edited by Verilligo, 09 February 2018 - 11:44 AM.

[Johnathan Von Tanner]

Khobai, on 09 February 2018 - 11:38 AM, said:

1) if you hadnt noticed, this initiative is pushing to make long range stronger. Which directly nerfs short range builds that have to close the distance.

2) theyre buffing other weapons like MRMs but not buffing SRMs. That is a comparative nerf to SRMs.


There is no way SRMs come out of this balance initiative in a good place.

And im telling you you wont even notice. Closing to brawl range will be no more difficult than it is now. MRMS need spread tightened. Right now there just for damage farming. I literally laugh when I see them on anything but any IV-4 coming at me, and at range I just step out of the way.

SRMs have terrible hit reg. Thats what needs to be fixed on SRMs.

[Khobai]

Verilligo, on 09 February 2018 - 11:42 AM, said:

3) This doesn't make any sense. Why must the AC20 not be a DPS weapon because the UAC20 is a better DPS weapon in your mind? They can both be considered DPS weapons. They both give high damage per second and per heat compared to weapons that do not, yes? The AC20 just happens to do it up front as well, something the UAC20 doesn't.

Because theres a minimum amount of DPS a true DPS weapon needs to be capable of in order to facetank.

AC20 and HGR dont do enough DPS to actually facetank. Theyre just not great at DPS.

They dont fall into the same category as actual DPS weapons. Theyre even used completely differently for that reason. Theyre more hit and fade style of weapons than DPS weapons.

Quote

1) If you increase the ghost heat of AC20s from 2 to 3, you end up dealing 40 damage PPFLD for 12 heat every 4s, or 10 DPS at 3 HPS. 2 GR/1 ERPPC is 40 damage PPFLD for 15.5 heat every (effectively) 5.5s, or 7.27 DPS at 2.81 HPS. It seems to me that would already be stronger.

But its still not high enough DPS to actually go out and facetank someone. There are much better dps weapons for that.

dual AC20 is more of a pop out of cover and shoot then retreat back into cover style of play.

its played very similarly to gauss/PPC, but with significantly less range. So the amount of PPFLD damage needs to be better.

same with HGR... its not really a dps weapon. Its strength is PPFLD, not its dps.

Quote

And im telling you you wont even notice. Closing to brawl range will be no more difficult than it is now. MRMS need spread tightened. Right now there just for damage farming. I literally laugh when I see them on anything but any IV-4 coming at me, and at range I just step out of the way.

SRMs have terrible hit reg. Thats what needs to be fixed on SRMs.

I dont believe PGI can fix the hit reg. Because its mostly a mech hitbox issue. Sometimes the missiles slip into cracks between hitboxes or hit locations that dont have hitboxes drawn properly.

What they can do is increase the damage per missile so the missiles that do register help make up the damage lost from the missiles that dont.

Edited by Khobai, 09 February 2018 - 12:07 PM.

[metallio]

Johnathan Von Tanner, on 09 February 2018 - 11:34 AM, said:

So kill the game?

No, kill the meta. Read the link if you want my thoughts on details, but it slows lasers while not making them useless. It kills long distance high damage insta-component destruction without killing sniping. It makes charging long range targets far more advantageous. It completely eliminates ghost heat. It makes multi-system weapon loads far more functional.

It's a different game than you know...and I think that's a damn good thing.

[Abisha]

Tiewolf, on 09 February 2018 - 11:38 AM, said:

No you can't choose to become a good player. There is something like live, jobs, kids, a wife, the house and so on. If everybody could invest the time in this game like the top players you might be right if I discount disabilities or the available equipment. Becoming good or not is in the most cases not a choice at all! This is one of the very weak/false arguments that is only used by top players to justify their ways. I assume you have another T1 account? Don't you?

i have to agree you can't be better then you even with maximum training people are good because they are good that's why they are the 1%.

[Tiewolf]

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?

Sorry but no! Not really and I guess a lot of players would say no if they could anticipate the outcome.

[Dogstar]

I like the overall idea but I'm not happy with some of the exact choices. I also think that it's aiming a bit low, there have been a number of good ideas concerning weapon system changes that I think should be incorporated if PGI are actually going to listen for once.

e.g.

• Increasing laser burn times and decreasing cooldown across the board to make them more 'DPS' like
  
• Using an RAC-like jam meter for UACs
  
• Allowing IS mechs to remove hand and lower arm actuators in order to fit big ACs

On a couple of specific points I'm dissapointed that your suggesting that some clan ACs/UACs should fire only a single projectile as it's been a defining clan characteristic for ages and it's generally over emphasised as a problem. That said I think reducing to a minimum of 2 projectiles, and making them fire faster/closer together would be fine but not dropping all the way to a single projectile - especially as the in-game graphics show them with multiple barrels.

[Khobai]

Quote

On a couple of specific points I'm dissapointed that your suggesting that some clan ACs/UACs should fire only a single projectile as it's been a defining clan characteristic for ages and it's generally over emphasised as a problem. That said I think reducing to a minimum of 2 projectiles, and making them fire faster/closer together would be fine but not dropping all the way to a single projectile - especially as the in-game graphics show them with multiple barrels.

to be fair the CAC2 is in some ways worse than the ISAC2. Like the fact it takes up 3 crit slots is pretty terrible.

But yes the CAC5 should not fire 1 projectile while still being otherwise superior to the ISAC5 in every way

Although really its a non-issue (or one barely worth mentioning) since the CUAC5 is still outright better.

This balance initiative hasnt really balanced ACs vs UACs in a way that makes me want to use both.

Edited by Khobai, 09 February 2018 - 11:57 AM.

[Johnathan Von Tanner]

metallio, on 09 February 2018 - 11:47 AM, said:

No, kill the meta. Read the link if you want my thoughts on details, but it slows lasers while not making them useless. It kills long distance high damage insta-component destruction without killing sniping. It makes charging long range targets far more advantageous. It completely eliminates ghost heat. It makes multi-system weapon loads far more functional.

It's a different game than you know...and I think that's a damn good thing.

Oh I did. No ghost heat? Hello 6 ppc stalker my old friend. Kill the meta? LOLZ. The meta is dead, long live the meta!

[Gas Guzzler]

Navid A1, on 09 February 2018 - 11:39 AM, said:

The thing you are missing here is how different builds go against what.

Here is how different mechs SHOULD operate:

Brawlers:

• useless in long range
  
• can't stand in the open
  
• heat efficient
  
• Very high alpha AND dps (burst abd sustained) up close
  
• dependent on the chassis agility
  
• accessible to all weight classes
  

mid-range laser boats:

• weak at range
  
• can't stand in the open
  
• very high alpha
  
• excellent mid-range poking
  
• good in holding firing lines
  
• average dps
  
• low heat efficiency
  
• manageable in close range
  
• accessible to all weight classes

AC centric builds:

• massive sustained dps
  
• good alpha
  
• manageable heat
  
• manageable at long range
  
• manageable if moving in the open is a must
  
• mid-range area-denial platform
  
• require face time constantly
  
• generally requires heavy and assault mechs

Long range laser builds:

• High alpha at long range
  
• High burst dps at long range
  
• long range area-denial platforms
  
• manageable in the open
  
• low heat efficiency
  
• very weak at close range
  
• require face time
  
• accessible to mediums and upwards

Gauss + PPC combinations (excluding 2G+2P)

• Pinpoint damage
  
• minimum face time
  
• very strong at static trades
  
• low dps
  
• low heat efficiency depending on the build.
  
• heavily dependent on the platform's agility and JJs (considering size and and weight of the weapons)
  
• vulnerable to critical hits
  
• weak in the open
  
• weak in close range
  
• accuracy affected by convergence against moving targets
  
• requires assault mechs for a 3 combination

Gauss vomit mechs

• Best of both worlds from mid-range laser baoting and Gauss + PPC

I like it. What he said.

[Verilligo]

Abisha, on 09 February 2018 - 11:47 AM, said:

i have to agree you can't be better then you even with maximum training people are good because they are good that's why they are the 1%.

Believe it or not, but the top 1% of players used to play like utter crap. How did they improve? By learning from their failures. You cannot simply throw your hands up and say you'll never be good. You have to put in the effort over a LONG period of time to eventually improve your ability. SOME players do have natural talent and good hand-eye coordination, but you're kidding yourself if you think all the top players just happen to be supermen.

[Khobai]

Quote

Believe it or not, but the top 1% of players used to play like utter crap. How did they improve? By learning from their failures. You cannot simply throw your hands up and say you'll never be good. You have to put in the effort over a LONG period of time to eventually improve your ability. SOME players do have natural talent and good hand-eye coordination, but you're kidding yourself if you think all the top players just happen to be supermen.

But new players arnt good. They start out bad.

When you design the game for the top 1%, so its only fun if youre good...

...New players tend to leave.

Especially in a game where a working matchmaker is at best a pipedream.

Lack of player population is one of the [many] reasons why a working matchmaker isnt even possible. You would segregate the players so much into different buckets that wait times would become atrocious. Thats why the matchmaker we have now just does the bare minimum of just trying to keep new players away from toxic vet players. So the new players dont pack up and leave immediately.

But the game really needs to be balanced with all skill levels in mind. Especially new players. Thats one reason why long range PPFLD builds were ghost heated. Players were complaining that the meta wasnt enjoyable. And the elite players were screaming at them to gitgud like they always do. Fortunately PGI picked the right side of that argument and ghost heated gauss/PPC.

Why do you persist in wanting to bring back something that so many people said wasnt fun for them? If your goal is supposedly to make the game more fun everyone? People already said they dont want it. Thats why it was taken out of the game to begin with. Youre balancing in circles... and expecting a different result than before. lol.

35-40 damage PPFLD sniping meta is dead. Right now youre at the bargaining stage of grief. Trying to bargain a partial rollback. Its time to move onto depression and ultimately accept the fact its dead. And should not ever come back. Because people didnt want it back then. And they dont want it now. People want a healthier, balanced meta where both sniping and brawling, and yes even LRMs can coexist.

Edited by Khobai, 09 February 2018 - 12:33 PM.

[Tiewolf]

Rampage, on 09 February 2018 - 10:36 AM, said:

OK. Maybe I am starting to see a pattern here. A certain group of people keep lobbying for the Gauss/PPC GH limit to be raised. They keep pointing to the huge laser vomit Alphas to justify that change saying that 35-50 FLPPD is not OP in the world of 78-91 laser vomit and Gauss vomit Alphas. I keep asking why those huge laser and Gauss Vomit Alphas are allowed to exist and why the problem was not addressed in this Community Weapons Balance Proposal. I keep getting totally ignored.

Could it be that the fact that it takes those Laser Vomit and Gauss Vomit boats 2-3+ seconds to step out from behind cover, fire their laser, deal with the long duration burns and then step back into cover all the while presenting them as huge juicy targets for the proponents of increased FLPPD damage who can instantly deal their damage and duck back into cover be the reason why it is

Aye that's what this discussion is all about. All the pro ppc/gauss players know that but they make silly comparisons to ER-LL or use fake arguments to push their own agendas. Very sad that a good idea becomes more and more a top players wish list. If they wanted to make this serious they would first balance the context out to a stable form and then assess the weapons. It makes no sense to adjust weapon values first before everything else. Weapons should be the last step. To start with them and how some argue here might give a hint
for which player group the changes are tailored.

[Dogstar]

Verilligo, on 09 February 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Believe it or not, but the top 1% of players used to play like utter crap. How did they improve? By learning from their failures. You cannot simply throw your hands up and say you'll never be good. You have to put in the effort over a LONG period of time to eventually improve your ability. SOME players do have natural talent and good hand-eye coordination, but you're kidding yourself if you think all the top players just happen to be supermen.

I'm sorry but this isn't even vaguely true, it's 'American Dream' propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that each player has a certain amount of innate talent that, while it can be highly improved on with hard work, isn't necessarily going to be the best.

Saying to someone that they'll be a top performer if they only work hard enough is a lie.

Top players start good and improve over time. Poor players start bad and (usually) improve over time but will never be as good as a top player.

Edited by Dogstar, 09 February 2018 - 12:14 PM.

[Eirik Eriksson]

Tiewolf, on 09 February 2018 - 11:38 AM, said:

No you can't choose to become a good player. There is something like live, jobs, kids, a wife, the house and so on. If everybody could invest the time in this game like the top players you might be right if I discount disabilities or the available equipment. Becoming good or not is in the most cases not a choice at all! This is one of the very weak/false arguments that is only used by top players to justify their ways. I assume you have another T1 account? Don't you?

And this is exactly the reason why I would suspect/hope that your input to those propsals made, would be very valuable. As long as your reasoning are at least somewhat unbiased and honest compared to other posts in this thread.

[Abisha]

Verilligo, on 09 February 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Believe it or not, but the top 1% of players used to play like utter crap. How did they improve? By learning from their failures. You cannot simply throw your hands up and say you'll never be good. You have to put in the effort over a LONG period of time to eventually improve your ability. SOME players do have natural talent and good hand-eye coordination, but you're kidding yourself if you think all the top players just happen to be supermen.

nonsense anyone that's talented are good even without practice it's in their nature. you can only archive your maximum potential no amount of training will makes you better then you can possible become.
a good example is max verstappen he was already talented even before he started sit in a F1 car.

if you are not at the top you will never be at the top. it's just statistics of 20/80 rule.

Edited by Abisha, 09 February 2018 - 12:20 PM.

[Verilligo]

Khobai, on 09 February 2018 - 12:10 PM, said:

But new players arnt good. They start out bad.

When you design the game for the top 1% so its only fun if youre good...

...New players tend to leave.

Especially in a game where a working matchmaker is at best a pipedream.

Lack of player population is one of the reasons why a working matchmaker isnt even possible. You would segregate the players so much into different buckets that wait times would become atrocious.

Please don't talk to me about the trials and tribulations of being a new player. I am a new player and have only been playing for, at most, a year. You know what I did to stop being bad? I learned how to play the bloody game. I'm not 1% material or anywhere close to it, but just because I'm not outstanding right now doesn't mean I have no hope in hell of getting better. Just because you re-introduce a weapon combo into the game doesn't mean I'm going to get squeamish and run away to hide in my little hole. The change is made, you learn to deal with it, and maybe you even learn how to use it. That's normal.

Dogstar, on 09 February 2018 - 12:12 PM, said:

I'm sorry but this isn't even vaguely true, it's 'American Dream' propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that each player has a certain amount of innate talent that, while it can be highly improved on with hard work, isn't necessarily going to be the best.

Saying to someone that they'll be a top performer if they only work hard enough is a lie.

Top players start good and improve over time. Poor players start bad and (usually) improve over time but will never be as good as a top player.

With an attitude like this, you're guaranteed to achieve failure. In order to be good at ANYTHING you must practice, practice, practice. Sure, you may never become the most amazing player ever, but if you never aspire to be good then you'll never become good. Not every great musician is Yo-yo Ma, but they can still be really damn good.

[Khobai]

Quote

Just because you re-introduce a weapon combo into the game doesn't mean I'm going to get squeamish and run away to hide in my little hole

that particular weapon combo has repeatedly been a problem throughout the games history and has been nerfed multiple times. until PGI finally just said f it and ghost heated it so they wouldnt have to deal with it anymore.

gauss/ppc has been targeted for nerfs on at least 6 different occasions that I can remember. Im sure theres been more... and if its brought back it will just end up getting nerfed again like it always does. For what? to make everyone suffer through another PPFLD sniping meta again? Why? what is the point of that?

it makes far more sense to focus on balancing the things everyone agrees would make the game more fun. Rather than trying to push a biased agenda of bringing back PPFLD sniping that a lot of the player base doesnt want.

Things we mostly agree on that would make the game more fun:
-Small lasers need buffs (higher ghost heat limits and enough dps to justify getting close)
-Mid range laser vomit needs nerfing (lower damage on CERML, lower damage alphas)
-Autocannons need buffing (more ammo per ton, less jamming on UACs)
-Missile weapons need buffing (homing missiles specifically need to be changed: both buffs and nerfs)
-PPCs need buffs (but not Gauss/PPC buffs)
-ERLL needs a nerf (range is way too long)

I have no problem with any of that.

Edited by Khobai, 09 February 2018 - 12:59 PM.

[metallio]

Johnathan Von Tanner, on 09 February 2018 - 11:54 AM, said:

Oh I did. No ghost heat? Hello 6 ppc stalker my old friend. Kill the meta? LOLZ. The meta is dead, long live the meta!

I'd take it. No alphas available at the drop of a hat and you have to chain fire that thing? GO FOR IT. I've got a four PPC marauder that I use chain fire on and the heat is unbearable. It does "ok" but it's darn sure not OP even when I can just keep slinging lightning.

[Eirik Eriksson]

Verilligo, on 09 February 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Believe it or not, but the top 1% of players used to play like utter crap. How did they improve? By learning from their failures. You cannot simply throw your hands up and say you'll never be good. You have to put in the effort over a LONG period of time to eventually improve your ability. SOME players do have natural talent and good hand-eye coordination, but you're kidding yourself if you think all the top players just happen to be supermen.

Verilligo, on 09 February 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Believe it or not, but the top 1% of players used to play like utter crap. How did they improve? By learning from their failures. You cannot simply throw your hands up and say you'll never be good. You have to put in the effort over a LONG period of time to eventually improve your ability. SOME players do have natural talent and good hand-eye coordination, but you're kidding yourself if you think all the top players just happen to be supermen.

I´m sure we all lived through the struggle. For myself I always kind of put out a target for my struggles and based them on my available time. And availiable time is the limit aint it. Reach that target, whatever it may be, and you are perfectly fine. No need at all to discuss player quality in this thread, we were asked for input for the proposed changes! And that means, all available input from any player experiences.

Edited by Slow Speed, 09 February 2018 - 12:51 PM.