251 replies to this topic

[1 21 Giggawatts]

To be honest I abused the hell out of dual gauss ppc on the night gyrs in CW. Poptarting was OP - even after the agility nerfs. Not sure it would be healthy for the game if it made a comeback. Dont get me wrong it was FUN - but not necessarily fair :-P

[Khobai]

Quote

What about the 60%, what if they leave?

players are far more likely to leave when something they dont want is forced on them.

players are far less likely to leave when they ask for something and dont get it.

[Kin3ticX]

several people asked about Gauss PPC when RJBass "free mechs and trips to vancouver" did that podcast. They managed to get through 2 hours without mentioning Gauss or PPC afaik. Its clearly not on the balance radar Kappa

I mean, im not expecting them to do any reversals here. Selling us Night Gyrs and Madcat IIs takes priority over keeping weapon combos free from restriction.

Gauss Peep died so Madcat MkII could live

Edited by Kin3ticX, 12 February 2018 - 12:34 AM.

[1 21 Giggawatts]

Kamikaze Viking, on 11 February 2018 - 07:53 PM, said:

I think its either give it back its agility OR give back PPC gauss. Not Both because that would make it OP again.

This is the issue with PGI's decoupling of maneuverability from engines. - after different changes over time - a mech which was once seen as over-performing - isnt anymore. However as PGI are nerfing over-performing mechs by agility nerfs - they still have those negative maneuverability quiks.. PGI have basically created a lot of extra work for themselves whereby in a perfect world they would re-address the agility nerfs after game balance changes. Or they could just pretend they dont exist and consign the nerfed mechs to the scrap heap for ever! Do you want to buy a mech pack??

Lol sorry this is off topic from original post - but i think its an important point that the engine decoupling will only work IF PGI stays current with how the bigger game balance changes affect individual mech's which have already had agility nerfs or bonuses.

Edited by 1 21 Giggawatts, 12 February 2018 - 12:33 AM.

[Curccu]

Khobai, on 12 February 2018 - 12:30 AM, said:

players are far more likely to leave when something they dont want is forced on them.

players are far less likely to leave when they ask for something and dont get it.

60% didn't leave when current gauss/ppc GH link was forced on them.

[The6thMessenger]

Curccu, on 12 February 2018 - 12:46 AM, said:

60% didn't leave when current gauss/ppc GH link was forced on them.

If that's the case the 40% won't also leave if Gauss/PPC GH less link is forced upon them.

[Khobai]

Quote

60% didn't leave when current gauss/ppc GH link was forced on them.

because 60% of players werent against that

x4 Gauss/PPC needed to be nerfed

even the initiative admits that thats why theyre only asking for x3 Gauss/PPC back

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 12 February 2018 - 01:10 AM, said:

because 60% of players werent against that

x4 Gauss/PPC needed to be nerfed

even the initiative admits that thats why theyre only asking for x3 Gauss/PPC back

And so we're only trying to get the 3x Gauss/PPC back, not the 4x Gauss/PPC back. So really there shouldn't be any problem as those 40%'s ire was really just the 4 Gauss/PPC.

[Dracol]

The6thMessenger, on 12 February 2018 - 01:38 AM, said:

And so we're only trying to get the 3x Gauss/PPC back, not the 4x Gauss/PPC back. So really there shouldn't be any problem as those 40%'s ire was really just the 4 Gauss/PPC.

There is a catch though. Per OP:
" (3x GAUSS/ppc alphas mean we allow 3xERPPC alpha. Keeping the penalty on 3x cERPPC means we must allow 2x cGauss + 2xcERPPC Gauss)"

[Khobai]

Quote

And so we're only trying to get the 3x Gauss/PPC back, not the 4x Gauss/PPC back. So really there shouldn't be any problem as those 40%'s ire was really just the 4 Gauss/PPC.

the problem is the night gyr and friends have to stay nerfed for agility then

because it wouldnt be balanced to have both x3 gauss/ppc and unnerfed agility on the night gyr


thats why I suggested the compromise of gauss rifles not being able to fire while jumping

that would allow x3 gauss/ppc on the ground (but gauss couldnt fire while jumping) and also allow the night gyr to have its agility unnerfed. the night gyr could still poptart with ppcs fine, just not poptart with both gauss and ppcs so you avoid the 40 PPFLD damage poptarting issue.

Edited by Khobai, 12 February 2018 - 02:01 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Dracol, on 12 February 2018 - 01:53 AM, said:

There is a catch though. Per OP:
" (3x GAUSS/ppc alphas mean we allow 3xERPPC alpha. Keeping the penalty on 3x cERPPC means we must allow 2x cGauss + 2xcERPPC Gauss)"

Mech The Dane, on 11 February 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

Furthermore, because of the way the game handles these things, if you allow players to bring 2ppc1gauss, it also means 1ppc2gauss will work. Which also means 3x PPC will work, which also means 2xGauss and 2x PPC will also work to a point. (3x GAUSS/ppc alphas mean we allow 3xERPPC alpha. Keeping the penalty on 3x cERPPC means we must allow 2x cGauss + 2xcERPPC Gauss)

"Work to a point".

2x Gauss + PPC and 2x Gauss + PPC right now also works to a point, yet there's the initiative right now -- because what they meant with "back" is that it's without GH.

The 2x Gauss + 2x PPC "working to a point" wouldn't be the same as "back".

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 February 2018 - 02:00 AM.

[Curccu]

The6thMessenger, on 12 February 2018 - 12:50 AM, said:

If that's the case the 40% won't also leave if Gauss/PPC GH less link is forced upon them.

That was my point...

[Mr Pataks]

My suggestion is we are looking at this completely the wrong way. Complicated ghost heat rules are stupid.

I believe there should be no special ghost heat penalty for firing varied combinations of GAUSS and PPCs (7 different weapon combos to remember). This is too complicated for new players!!!

Besides you could just boat GAUSS and ACs or GAUSS and Laser vomit to avoid it.

My alternate solution which avoids arbitrary complicated ghost heat penalties.

What if there was a heat penalty for charging a gauss rifle, rather than for firing it. Not a large penalty but a heat penalty that builds up the longer it is charged until the rifle discharges itself. A power draw if you will. Now add multiple gauss rifles into the mix and multiply that heat penalty.

Often snipers will charge and hold, charge and hold and keep that gauss loaded until they get their perfect shot.

This will force snipers who use energy weapons as well for pinpoint damage to use more skill to aim and time shots or to take snap shots to avoid overheating penalties.

[sycocys]

I voted for allowing it -

but only if they implement an actual energy draw system which is needed anyhow to help balance all the tech + weapons.

[Khobai]

comp players will never allow energy draw unfortunately

they shut it down last time because it wouldve stopped high PPFLD alphas

just like they tried to stop the ghost heat linkage Gauss/PPC

and now theyre trying to bargain back for x3 Gauss/PPC

the energy draw ship has sank.

Edited by Khobai, 12 February 2018 - 03:15 AM.

[L0stA1m]

Khobai, on 12 February 2018 - 03:12 AM, said:

comp players will never allow energy draw unfortunately

they shut it down last time because it wouldve stopped high PPFLD alphas

wtf are u talking about?
It was shut down because it was garbage how PGI build it.

[Khobai]

Quote

wtf are u talking about?
It was shut down because it was garbage how PGI build it.

that couldve easily been fixed.

they shouldnt have scrapped it

but players convinced them to get rid of it

but the fact is they needed something better than ghost heat

ghost heat has too many loopholes that energy draw couldve closed up

now they have to nerf weapons because ghost heat doesnt work, which is worse than if we just had energy draw

Edited by Khobai, 12 February 2018 - 03:24 AM.

[L0stA1m]

Khobai, on 12 February 2018 - 03:17 AM, said:

that couldve easily been fixed.

Yeah, but PGI has a strong agenda to not listen to player who know (guess who? Comp and other very good Players) what they are talking about.
Instead they are listening to guys like you.

[Sigmar Sich]

I abstain. It doesn't really matter if you return this combo, game is completely broken by now.

Problem is much deeper than fate of this weapon combo. Problem with this game - damage and ranges are out of control. All the time since beta, game degrades from fun mech combat into ever increasing alphas and ranges. Game, capable of so much more, is just reduced to "Peeking man's puker". Which makes absolutely boring gameplay.
I'm sad this rebalance effort failed to adress this problem. "Buff everything" attitude is just as bad as "nerf everything". You should address core problems, not inventing another bandaid.

P.S. When criticising something, it is appropriate to suggest a solution. So, here's what should be done, in my opinion:
1. Nerf giga-alphas. Maybe slight decrease of heat, damage and cooldown, across the board, for lasers. Rework pulse lasers into DPS weapon even further, halving cooldown and decreasing damage by 1/3. Rework heavy lasers into constant beam on flamer code, sort of like energy RACs.
2. Decrease maximum ranges for all ER family. So maximum range of ER weapons would be not much longer than of ordinary weapon. But optimal range would be better. Same for "too much long range" ballistics, like AC/2. And roll back your blipping mad suggestion about Light Gauss.
3. Nerf LRM indirect fire, without line of sight, with significantly bigger spread, and decreased missile maneuverability. Then you can buff LRMs to be a valid choice for long range combat, without fear of another lurmageddon, because now to use LRMs properly, you would need a lot of facetime.
4. Buff with quirks mechs who have bad hardpoint placement/quantity/mixed types, in attempt to make mixed loadouts somewhat viable. Boating is cancer of this game.
5. Nerf or kill %-based skill tree. It just scales problems even further.

[Bud Crue]

Sigmar Sich, on 12 February 2018 - 04:16 AM, said:

I'm sad this rebalance effort failed to adress this problem. "Buff everything" attitude is just as bad as "nerf everything". You should address core problems, not inventing another bandaid.

Not really directed at you I suppose, but I thought this effort was about a start toward making the game more fun; not necessarily a "rebalance". I think balance would be great, but I don't think it is ever going to happen, but what I for one would like is a reason, any legit reason to play a mix build IS mech for example. As it is, in QP I take three flavors of laser vomit clan mechs. If the proposed "Buff everything" effort (as you characterize it, (ftr, don't see a need to buff clan laser or gauss vomit)) gives me a reason to run more of my mechs with a greater variety of builds then its fine with me; be it "balanced" or not.

Sigmar Sich, on 12 February 2018 - 04:16 AM, said:

P.S. When criticising something, it is appropriate to suggest a solution. So, here's what should be done, in my opinion:
1. Nerf giga-alphas. Maybe slight decrease of heat, damage and cooldown, across the board, for lasers. Rework pulse lasers into DPS weapon even further, halving cooldown and decreasing damage by 1/3. Rework heavy lasers into constant beam on flamer code, sort of like energy RACs.
2. Decrease maximum ranges for all ER family. So maximum range of ER weapons would be not much longer than of ordinary weapon. But optimal range would be better. Same for "too much long range" ballistics, like AC/2. And roll back your blipping mad suggestion about Light Gauss.
3. Nerf LRM indirect fire, without line of sight, with significantly bigger spread, and decreased missile maneuverability. Then you can buff LRMs to be a valid choice for long range combat, without fear of another lurmageddon, because now to use LRMs properly, you would need a lot of facetime.
4. Buff with quirks mechs who have bad hardpoint placement/quantity/mixed types, in attempt to make mixed loadouts somewhat viable. Boating is cancer of this game.
5. Nerf or kill %-based skill tree. It just scales problems even further.

I like a lot of these ideas at least conceptually, but i fear they are mostly out of the bounds of reasonable expectations for this effort. Based on Tarogato's and others comments regarding their discussions with PGI, it seems like weapons values propsals are about all they are willing to listen to at this point...and even that has no promise of PGI actually instituting anything.

But your last two proposals raise a bigger issue to my way of thinking, at least in regard to the theme of your post, to wit: "balance" is impossible with the current game mechanics. In re your specific ideas:
- About a third of the mechs in the game can do nothing but boat the same style of weapons (e.g. that single head missile point on a Grasshopper just aint gonna cut it for giving the Hopper some variety other than energy weapons, no matter how you buff the thing, and there are dozens of mechs in a similar position). How do you cure the "cancer" when many of the patients (mechs) are the cancer?
- Percent based skills tree. Your point is totally valid and proof that PGI doesn't understand or care about the current lack of variety. The skills tree provides zero motivation to do anything but boat similar weapons. It actively punishes you for taking a variety of weapons. Yet PGI insists -still- that the skills tree promotes build diversity; they are blind to reality and the fact that they only appear to be open to adjusting some weapons values as opposed to the deeper more fundamental sources of imbalance and "un fun" practically guarantees that this current effort will likely fail.