1125 replies to this topic

[banana peel]

I'll link my draft of proposed changes that i posted on Reddit, if you guys wanna check that out. Just another point of view from another balance loyalist.

Summary:
Basically, we must observe not particular weapons to buff or nerf, but rather effective combinations that fall into 6 cathegories of playstyle: "dps/sustained dps oriented" and "damage per exposure time" for each of range brackets - short, medium and long. (For example, med+large laservomit - med range "damage pre exposure; uac spam - med range dps)

We know that right now two cathegories dominate the game - long and med range "damage per exposure". Therefore a simple solution would be to lower available med and long range alphas and at the same time to improve dps combos and close range combos. There are a lot of weapons that can be buffed or changed to not only bring back forgotten playstyles but also make them diverse.

[dario03]

Mech The Dane, on 12 February 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

We continue as planned.
PGI's greatest fear is that the community comes to a consensus.
So long as we are divided and answerless we will be easy to ignore and manipulate.

But united (somewhat) with a banner of balance-changes to rally around; we will be UNSTOPPABLE!

TAROGATO, UNFURL THE SPREADSHEETS! NAVID, MAN THE OARS! METACHANIC SHIMBER TIMBERS OR SOMETHING! BEAR CLAW LOOK TO THE HORIZON!

WE ARE COMING FOR YOU PGI! ONE COMMUNITY-DRIVEN NUMBER AT A TIME!

Never gonna get everybody to agree to everything. For instance until

Quote

We do not believe changes to Streak SRMs are necessary at present.

changes I can't get behind this completely. Thats a bigger issue for me than even the ppc/gauss. Heck even an official announcement thread called for people to get their streaks out when the Piranha came out.

Edited by dario03, 12 February 2018 - 05:31 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

dario03, on 12 February 2018 - 05:30 PM, said:

Heck even an official announcement thread called for people to get their streaks out when the Piranha came out.

Yeah this was very irritating to me, and I'm mainly an assault pilot.

People were bragging about it in match chat too.

[The6thMessenger]

Mech The Dane, on 12 February 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

TAROGATO, UNFURL THE SPREADSHEETS! NAVID, MAN THE OARS! METACHANIC SHIMBER TIMBERS OR SOMETHING! BEAR CLAW LOOK TO THE HORIZON!

WE ARE COMING FOR YOU PGI! ONE COMMUNITY-DRIVEN NUMBER AT A TIME!

I'm fine with most of it. Damn, even give them the 3x Gauss/PPC link. Just give the RACs Navid's changes.

Spoiler

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

[dario03]

Gas Guzzler, on 12 February 2018 - 05:33 PM, said:

Yeah this was very irritating to me, and I'm mainly an assault pilot.

People were bragging about it in match chat too.

Need more heavy and assault pilots to see the light. I play everything but I always push for the streak changes and light buffs because I view the game as player vs player. I think we should aim for the best balance that we can get across all mechs. And since lights can already be countered by plenty of other stuff I don't see the need to make streaks be a completely anti-brawling light weapon and then say oh but its balanced because streaks are bad vs the bigger mechs. Thats not balance, heck if anything we need weapons that are really good against the bigger mechs. And the fact that its an auto-aim weapon just makes it worse. I can understand lrm since its supposed to be a long range support weapon, but a brawling weapon thats auto aim in a fps style game... come on.

But a lot of players main the bigger mechs so...

Edited by dario03, 12 February 2018 - 05:54 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

The6thMessenger, on 12 February 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

I'm fine with most of it. Damn, even give them the 3x Gauss/PPC link. Just give the RACs Navid's changes.

Spoiler

Goooooooooooooooooooooood

[Sereglach]

It's worth noting that not once in the podcast did they say that they weren't up to addressing overall mechanics; and therefore changes that address fundamental function ARE on the table. Hell, they even said that they were considering going back and buffing Jump Jets since poptarting is finally recognized as being nerfed into the ground.

LRMs seemed to be shelved because of "not wanting to address fundamental overhauls". I also agree that Streaks need some changing, as well (hell, just make them shoot almost like ATMs with an even straighter firing arc, with more agility, and call it a day). There seemed to be a number of other issues mentioned here that the community could start looking at and proposing changes for.

Also, I'd still love this community effort to take Flamers into consideration, please. Since Tarogato wanted it as such, I think I laid it out as simply as I could for consideration . . . just for reference:

Sereglach, on 10 February 2018 - 08:35 PM, said:

You wanted to know the why, so I gave you the why as briefly as I could. I can't help it that PGI put the Flamer into a convoluted mess with their exponential mechanics, firing windows, and abstract cooldowns. Regardless, if you don't care about the why and just want the briefest version possible, it's as simple as this:

- Set all of the XML attributes that revolve around the exponential scaling and firing/cooldown windows to zero (thereby disabling it).

- Set Damage to 0.8 - 1.0 to return it to pre-Flamergeddon values and make it more competitive with similar weapons in class.

- HPS Generation becomes 1.0 HPS flat with exponential mechanics disabled.

- Reduce Heat DPS to 1.5 - 2.0 to make it manageable and easily tuned as the sustained fire weapon it was originally designed to be.

Results cause the Flamer to be the sustained fire weapon it was originally designed as and make all stats able to be tuned without wild swings into game-breaking OP (like Flamergeddon) or completely useless (like it is now).

[HammerMaster]

Basically he's dismissing your spreadsheet. LRM's shelved. I'm trying to not be judgmental but I feel like there is a condescending tone. And post to read-it. Ya no.

Edited by HammerMaster, 12 February 2018 - 07:06 PM.

[Mystere]

Rampage, on 12 February 2018 - 05:22 PM, said:

Strikes are taking a hit.

Never underestimate the power of loud incessant whining and crying on the forums to effect change.

[HammerMaster]

Mystere, on 12 February 2018 - 07:23 PM, said:

Never underestimate the power of loud incessant whining and crying on the forums to effect change.

Ya whining. Not because it was A GLARING ISSUE!

[The6thMessenger]

https://www.reddit.c...update/du5sl2w/

Quote

RAC2: Jam ramp up time to 8 seconds (currently 6)
RAC2: reduce spread by 50% (0.09)
RAC2: increased range to 600m (currently 540)
RAC2: Velocity buff to 1700 m/s (from 1500)

RAC5: Velocity buff to 1200 m/s (from 1025)
RAC5: reduce spread by 50% (0.11)
RAC5: Reduced heat to 3.6/s (currently 4/s)
And we kept the heat reduction from earlier as well. (10%).

Unbelievable. This is just as stupid as trying to get LGR longer effective range, longer shooting time isn't what RAC2 needs. A lot of other more sensible builds could work more effectively at that new effective range, and at that same tonnage allotment.

[Johnathan Tanner]

I want to take a moment to thank all the guys who worked on this community initiative. After listening to the pgi response podcast tho it sounds like there is a completely different view from the dev's. o7

[0Jiggs0]

The6thMessenger, on 12 February 2018 - 09:52 PM, said:

https://www.reddit.c...update/du5sl2w/



Unbelievable. This is just as stupid as trying to get LGR longer effective range, longer shooting time isn't what RAC2 needs. A lot of other more sensible builds could work more effectively at that new effective range, and at that same tonnage allotment.

Seconded. These changes miss the mark.

• The RAC2 needs better damage output, not a longer firing time. Firing a RAC for 6 seconds is already a risky proposition. To do adequate damage, RAC users MUST stay focused on the target without interruption, and in doing so, they make themselves vulnerable. Increasing the amount of possible firing time only increases the amount of risk that can be taken, and does nothing to improve the reward.
  
• The spin-up time for both RACs is too long, resulting in missed opportunities and lengthening the amount of exposure time needed to get damage out. The velocity buffs are only needed because the spin-up time makes RACs too cumbersome to use from closer ranges. These are aren't sniper weapons, they are for suppression during aggressive team movements and need to be responsive enough for that role.
  
• Spread is at worst a minor issue for RACs. Even if they were given perfect accuracy, they would still be sustained-fire, cumulative damage weapons used on targets that are twisting and moving to cover. RACs will spread damage no matter what. Buffing their spread accomplishes little.

Navid A1 was on the right track with what these weapons need. I could understand some tuning to the proposal, but these changes seem really disconnected. What was the thought process here?

[Johnathan Tanner]

0Jiggs0, on 13 February 2018 - 01:05 AM, said:

Seconded. These changes miss the mark.

• The RAC2 needs better damage output, not a longer firing time. Firing a RAC for 6 seconds is already a risky proposition. To do adequate damage, RAC users MUST stay focused on the target without interruption, and in doing so, they make themselves vulnerable. Increasing the amount of possible firing time only increases the amount of risk that can be taken, and does nothing to improve the reward.
  
• The spin-up time for both RACs is too long, resulting in missed opportunities and lengthening the amount of exposure time needed to get damage out. The velocity buffs are only needed because the spin-up time makes RACs too cumbersome to use from closer ranges. These are aren't sniper weapons, they are for suppression during aggressive team movements and need to be responsive enough for that role.
  
• Spread is at worst a minor issue for RACs. Even if they were given perfect accuracy, they would still be sustained-fire, cumulative damage weapons used on targets that are twisting and moving to cover. RACs will spread damage no matter what. Buffing their spread accomplishes little.

Navid A1 was on the right track with what these weapons need. I could understand some tuning to the proposal, but these changes seem really disconnected. What was the thought process here?

RACS are so bad I kinda feel like they were added simply to be a low skill ballistic option. Hold fire drag mouse almost laser hit scan. completely inferior to uacs of in every other way.

Anyway the initiative is dead so RACS will remain bad.

Edited by Johnathan Tanner, 13 February 2018 - 01:54 AM.

[Khobai]

they were never going to accept that community proposal anyway.

paul has never accepted any community proposal. this is like the third or fourth one over the years. remember #savemwo and #savemwo2? I do. I remember a bunch of people getting banned too. That was hilarious.

they see you as a small, highly vocal, and mostly harmless minority. they dont consider you representative of the entire MWO community at large. theyre not going to risk upsetting the status quo to placate a few dissidents. Ive seriously never seen a game developer that has as much contempt for their community as PGI


at least strikes are getting nerfed. thats something. more than I expected.

Edited by Khobai, 13 February 2018 - 03:07 AM.

[Johnathan Tanner]

Khobai, on 13 February 2018 - 02:54 AM, said:

small, highly vocal, and mostly harmless.

Just like you lol, And don't count the will of the people out just yet my friend.

[The6thMessenger]

0Jiggs0, on 13 February 2018 - 01:05 AM, said:

What was the thought process here?

Probably meta-people that never really considered and got acquainted with RAC2 to really know how bad it is. Or they just plainly don't care.

[Andi Nagasia]

Johnathan Tanner, on 12 February 2018 - 11:04 PM, said:

I want to take a moment to thank all the guys who worked on this community initiative. After listening to the pgi response podcast tho it sounds like there is a completely different view from the dev's. o7

odd because Paul said that he and Chris have similar views to what needs to change,
just they want to slowly get here to avoid large swings(over buffing / over nerfing) which is understandable,
ill wait to see whats coming in the Feb Patch and see how things pan out from there,
but as it is right now, i can see where PGI is coming from and their goals,

Khobai, on 13 February 2018 - 02:54 AM, said:

they were never going to accept that community proposal anyway.

paul has never accepted any community proposal. this is like the third or fourth one over the years. remember #savemwo and #savemwo2? I do. I remember a bunch of people getting banned too. That was hilarious.

they see you as a small, highly vocal, and mostly harmless minority. they dont consider you representative of the entire MWO community at large. theyre not going to risk upsetting the status quo to placate a few dissidents. Ive seriously never seen a game developer that has as much contempt for their community as PGI


at least strikes are getting nerfed. thats something. more than I expected.

they have in the past many times, too many to just start noting here,
but they have said they would like to do some of the things mentioned here,
but with that Paul said(dont expect 100% of all the changes Proposed, or the exact numbers used)

also i wouldnt say PGI has contempt for the MWO Community,
they may not have as many open discussions as perhaps we would all like,
but its clear that they do care for Players and the IP,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 13 February 2018 - 09:35 AM.

[Abisha]

Khobai, on 13 February 2018 - 02:54 AM, said:

they were never going to accept that community proposal anyway.

paul has never accepted any community proposal. this is like the third or fourth one over the years. remember #savemwo and #savemwo2? I do. I remember a bunch of people getting banned too. That was hilarious.

they see you as a small, highly vocal, and mostly harmless minority. they dont consider you representative of the entire MWO community at large. theyre not going to risk upsetting the status quo to placate a few dissidents. Ive seriously never seen a game developer that has as much contempt for their community as PGI


at least strikes are getting nerfed. thats something. more than I expected.

they can easy add a poll in MWO client system that's have a unique ID to the gamer MWO player of 1 year is allow to vote on.
this way they know what the real community wanna since i not represent 100% of the MWO gamers i dont think i like those new changes

[sycocys]

Initiative folks (Dane/Tarragato/Navid and the rest) -

I can tell you with certainty that I will not be behind any balance initiative that doesn't start with accounting for adding a loadout cost to the skil buff tree and non-slotted consumables, and then tackle the base tech that sets the stage for the weapon issues. Even then you'll have a hard time getting me on board unless there's a realistically implementable plan for and energy draw system to replace the useless ghost heat mechanic.

Wish you guys the best, but you started in the wrong place to effect any sort of game balance.