Jump to content

Community Panel Weapon Balance 2.1


347 replies to this topic

#1 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,486 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 07 June 2018 - 06:23 AM

After what has perhaps been the longest week of deliberation in annals of history, we have awoken from our hibernation.



> Balance Proposal Document

> Spreadsheets with pretty colours



Update! 12-Jun-2018
The spreadsheet and doc have been updated with the following changes:

- RAC2: has been simplified to a velocity-only buff. The spread, heat, and range buffs are gone.
- RAC5: has been simplified to just a velocity and spread buff. The heat buff is gone.
- LMG: the additional crit damage buff has been removed.
- cAC family: the shell-count reduction has been replaced with ~30% velocity boosts instead.
- Gauss family: the ExplodeChance buffs have been replaced by Health buffs, which are more effective.






What is this?

A small group of players spanning various units have come together to draft suggestions for PGI to implement in order to better balance the weapons in the game. The suggestions presented are the result of countless hours debating the best ways of addressing what we perceive to be the biggest problems, and many compromises have been made in order to reach consensus. You will find more details on our approach inside the proposal document.

This proposal concerns weapon balance tweaks only. So things like game mechanic reworks, complete paradigm shifts, and any changes beyond baseline weapon stats... are all out of question, for the sake of brevity and concentrated effort.



Why did this take so long?

I initially planned for us to peruse feedback for a week, make adjustments, and post our final draft. About 500 comments worth of feedback and discussion I was prepared to deal with. I wasn't expecting to get slammed with over 1,500. So going through feedback took more than a week, I got busy with IRL, as did the rest of us, and interest in the project waned. Until last week. And now it's done, wheeeeeeee.



What's changed since last time?

The biggest change has been a reduction in the sheer amount of changes - things have been simplified. We deliberated over and incorporated feedback wherever possible. Here is the spreadsheet I made to address feedback. If you are wondering why your feedback was not incorporated, perhaps check that sheet for an explanation first, there's a good chance it might be in there.

Here are links to the previous posts: OutreachHPG // MWO forums



Which potatoes were involved in drafting this?

- Tarogato [ISEN]
- Navid A1 [-D5-]
- Metachanic [G0ON]
- bear_cl4w [G0ON][-D5-][community pet][pastry][streamer]
- Bows3r [EmP]
- QueenBlade [228]
- briefly involved: Fragosaurus Rex, denAirWalkerrr






What now?

Do you want PGI to take these suggestions under serious consideration? Do you think the changes in this proposal will improve the game? If you disagree with some of the finer details, do you at least agree with the Highest Priority Changes as discussed at the top of the document?

Edited by Tarogato, 12 June 2018 - 12:21 PM.


#2 Eisenhorne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,111 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 07 June 2018 - 06:37 AM

I support these changes, they all look like they'd improve balance overall. And even if it doesn't, its not like balance is in a great place, and at least PGI could defend themselves by saying, "We tried to listen at least!"

#3 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 4,659 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 06:41 AM

I just took a peek.. LBX, IS heavier, more slots, same damage speed spread cooldown. Did I miss something?

#4 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,077 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:20 AM

View PostTarogato, on 07 June 2018 - 06:23 AM, said:


Do you want PGI to take these suggestions under serious consideration? Do you think the changes in this proposal will improve the game? If you disagree with some of the finer details, do you at least agree with the Highest Priority Changes as discussed at the top of the document?


Yes.
Probably.
Yes, though I am as apprehensive as you appear to be regarding adjustments to clan laser vomit, given what PGI proposed to do last month. In that light, I fear they will just break a dozen or more non problematic builds with anything they might do here. Thus in at least this one aspect, I would prefer them to er on the side of less change even to the extent of doing nothing, rather than pulling a another GH or across the board style nerf that hurts far more than the intended targets.

Edit:

One more thing...

1500 individual notes from players giving you feedback.
Hey! Paul!! Russ!! Does 1500 comments asking for change count as “overwhelming support” this time?

Edited by Bud Crue, 07 June 2018 - 07:22 AM.


#5 IdToaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 196 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:28 AM

>10-slot LB20s
>better micro lasers
Well I'm already on board.

Though I wish someone would float the idea of giving the Heavy Gauss 5 more meters of optimal range, so its maximum range would be exactly 4 times optimal and the numbers would stop laughing at me.

#6 Elizander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,112 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:38 AM

I wish they could just code it so that the LB20x for IS can take 1 slot from the adjacent arm. They can code it like Ferro/Endo/Stealth once you slap an LB20x in.

MRMs are already hot and heavy, so improving their CD really won't hurt too much. They are sandblasters and hard to hit with at range.

As for the IS ER Medium Laser, I'd much rather see a damage increase up to 5.5 rather than have the heat reduced.

What I can see here is mostly making these weapons more fun to use. The minor changes will probably fly over most people's heads if they even bother to read it. I have no issue if stuff like this goes through since it'll make firing weapons more enjoyable.

Edited by Elizander, 07 June 2018 - 07:41 AM.


#7 SFC174

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fighter
  • The Fighter
  • 667 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:40 AM

Just read the whole thing. I like it. I agree with about 95% of the changes including most of the Clan lasvomit alterations (and I like my Clan lasvomit mechs).

Quibbles:

1.) I'm not sure the C-LPL changes are necessary. I feel like its probably one of the best balanced Clan lasers right now.

2.) I don't like the IS MG dmg buffs. I understand why (heavier, no boats like Clan), but I'd rather see IS MGs take on a different role with other benefits for their increased weight (range maybe? Perhaps a higher optimal range but similar max range akin to how Clan pulse lasers work).

If the changes get whittled down, the must have changes in my book (in no particular order) are:

1. Small laser improvements, especially SPLs on both sides
2. Clan AC revisions
3. Artemis buff
4. IS LBX20 crit slot reduction :)

#8 Gen Lee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 207 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:45 AM

Looks like y'all have been doing your homework and crunching some numbers. I must say, it's looking good so far, at least on paper. For every change, there's thought behind it. Now, I may have only been playing since late last year, but one thing I do know for sure is that unless the hitreg issues are dealt with, lasers will still be the most reliable of all weapons. We've all had those moments when you shot someone center torso, only to have the shot pass right through or land and not do any damage. I'd like to know what the tickrate is on the servers, and if upping it could help deal with hitreg issues. I've seen other games suffer from low tickrates when it comes to hitreg, and there wasn't even a lot of firing going on at the time.

Edited by Gen Lee, 07 June 2018 - 07:46 AM.


#9 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,486 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:49 AM

View PostSFC174, on 07 June 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:

1.) I'm not sure the C-LPL changes are necessary. I feel like its probably one of the best balanced Clan lasers right now.


I can attest to the fact that we argued at length over how to address the cLPL and cHLL. Some people want it unchanged, other people want it buffed. We did agree that maybe it is performing less like a pulse laser than it should, but we disagreed on how to reconcile it. This is a compromise.

Quote

2.) I don't like the IS MG dmg buffs. I understand why (heavier, no boats like Clan), but I'd rather see IS MGs take on a different role with other benefits for their increased weight (range maybe? Perhaps a higher optimal range but similar max range akin to how Clan pulse lasers work).


I would think that having your weapons crit out at longer ranges by IS machine guns would be a cancer-inducing experience. I'd rather see MGs keep their short range, it's a feature that defines them. However, on IS side they simply don't deal enough damage to compete with lasers, SRMs, or the clan MGs.

#10 CMDR Sunset Shimmer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,296 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:50 AM

I don't trust any document where Goon is anywhere near it.

#11 Composite Armour

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 199 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:56 AM

View PostCMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 07 June 2018 - 07:50 AM, said:

I don't trust any document where Goon is anywhere near it.

haHAA

#12 process

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,658 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:00 AM

These are all nudges in a better direction. My only criticisms are:

- SRM2 improvements aren't enough. Reduce the cooldown to somewhere in the 1.5 to 1.75 range. I don't anticipate they'll get much use as-is, since people are usually more interested in big splat damage. A more machine-gun-like SRM2 could introduce some interesting variety.

- IS LB20X slot reduction triggers my OCD, and doesn't seem to substantially improve the weapon. The velocity is better than an AC20, but you still have the spread to contend with, and crits are overrated. I'd rather start with a 50% damage buff. I'd also apply a similar damage buff to other IS LBX weapons.

Edited by process, 07 June 2018 - 08:04 AM.


#13 Stinger554

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hungry
  • The Hungry
  • 383 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:15 AM

View Postprocess, on 07 June 2018 - 08:00 AM, said:


- IS LB20X slot reduction triggers my OCD, and doesn't seem to substantially improve the weapon. The velocity is better than an AC20, but you still have the spread to contend with, and crits are overrated. I'd rather start with a 50% damage buff. I'd also apply a similar damage buff to other IS LBX weapons.

IS LB20X crit slot reduction is so it more viable as a weapon for more than like 2 mechs, since you'll be able to at least run a LFE with it now. LB20X damage was never an issue. Taking the standard engine was.

Edited by Stinger554, 07 June 2018 - 08:15 AM.


#14 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:18 AM

More importantly, were my posts ever considered? Posted Image

*edit* It seems to be the case.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2018 - 08:23 AM.


#15 process

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,658 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:27 AM

View PostStinger554, on 07 June 2018 - 08:15 AM, said:

IS LB20X crit slot reduction is so it more viable as a weapon for more than like 2 mechs, since you'll be able to at least run a LFE with it now. LB20X damage was never an issue. Taking the standard engine was.


I just question why, even with 2 of them, you'd take it over a standard AC20. Is it the crit damage, lack of ghost heat, etc?

#16 Antares102

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:28 AM

Thank you for your work Tarogato.
Yet I have to ask. Have you ever had any indication that PGI actually consideres what you guys worked out?

#17 Metachanic

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:31 AM

View Postprocess, on 07 June 2018 - 08:27 AM, said:


I just question why, even with 2 of them, you'd take it over a standard AC20. Is it the crit damage, lack of ghost heat, etc?


All of the above. Lack of ghost heat and higher velocity make them much easier to use, and the crit damage is a fine boost late-game. All of which comes at the expense of requiring a significantly slower mech thanks to the STD engine, and the inability to arm-mount them as Clan mechs can. Not to mention an arguably lower effective range than AC20s thanks to the fairly high spread.

EDIT: Worth noting that the weak state of the AC20 (low velocity, ghost heat) is a major reason for the LB20X getting picked. It wouldn't take too much of an AC20 buff to reduce the attractiveness of the LB20X.

Edited by Metachanic, 07 June 2018 - 08:37 AM.


#18 Requiemking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Scarecrow
  • The Scarecrow
  • 2,445 posts
  • LocationStationed at the Iron Dingo's Base on Dumassas

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:37 AM

View PostBud Crue, on 07 June 2018 - 07:20 AM, said:

1500 individual notes from players giving you feedback.
Hey! Paul!! Russ!! Does 1500 comments asking for change count as “overwhelming support” this time?

Nope. From what I recall, Paul basically said that getting the devs to consider any player-proposed changes requires 100% playerbase support, which with this playerbase is as close to impossible as one can conceivably get.

#19 Asym

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:37 AM

Good effort....

Missiles were mostly ignored and because of that, I'm not in favor. What's the point of having an entire weapons type that is routinely ignored.... Balance is about game balance: which, should infer that Energy, Ballistic and Missiles should be equally and seriously balanced.

A good effort; but, I don't think PGI cares; nor, have the money, people or time to do very much of anything...

#20 JC Daxion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 5,000 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 08:39 AM

I think energy draw needs to come back in a working condition.



Balance would of course be made off of that, (and i totally apreciate the post btw)

Edited by JC Daxion, 07 June 2018 - 08:39 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users