347 replies to this topic

[Kamikaze Viking]

The first 4 pages of this thread are good feedback, and discussion. page 5 starts to go off the rails and start talking about things that are way outside of the scope of what can be done here. Yes those things would be nice, but save it for another day.

Overall its amazing work. Great work team!

As far as i can tell the values and changes seem to fit right with what works in my mind, comparing various weapons to now and the past and their effectiveness in specific situations or on specific mechs.

I cannot see any obvious outliers that will cause problems by changing things too far or breaking the game, But it should do well to increase the viable variety of weapons and playstyles without significantly increasing or decreasing overall TTK.

Approve it, Code it, Ship it!

[Nema Nabojiv]

Jay Leon Hart, on 08 June 2018 - 05:19 AM, said:

Number of Clan nerfs;
8

Number of Clan buffs;
34

Maybe read the document next time?

There are nerfs to crucial clan weapons and buffs to irrelevant ones. 100 m/s CAC5 velocity? 0.20 LB5X spread? Yay! So important, much balance.

Overall the whole list consists of insufficient buffs to bad weapons, and nerfs to few good ones. I dont see how's that different from what Chris does, and Chris is notoriously horribad at his job.

[Nameless King]

Tarogato, on 07 June 2018 - 08:51 PM, said:

Anecdote: Right now the cLB10 is a straight upgrade over the IS LB10, in every way. Yet I have multiple people suggesting buffs specifically for the cLB10 because the IS LB10 is outperforming it. Moral of the story: better doesn't necessary mean better?

I agree with your gut reaction, however consider that the cAC5 is essentially useless in its present set, and this is essentially a net change of 0.11 seconds. I have a pretty good feeling that it won't instantly be a better alternative than the cUAC5. Just a viable one. Fwiw, I do like McGral's suggestion of a significant velocity boost instead of a shell count boost. However, I'm not completely sold on it...



I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

... but this does agree with my personal take on LRMs. Lower their arc, improve their velocity and spread, but highly reduce indirect lock-ons. Essentially, focus them much more toward a direct-fire role. Then they can be viable in more situations, without becoming cancerous on wide-open maps which are the havens of indirect fire. Just my opinion, though.



We debated this for a while, but the thing we seemed to agree on most strongly was that the cUAC20 is bad specifically because it is four shells. It's just too much, it bukkаkes everywhere, even at very short ranges. Jam duration, we agreed is massively too long for both UAC20 and cUAC20. We also seemed to agree that while the UAC20 is kinda bad, the cUAC20 is mega bad. So I think it's fair to see how the land lies in a post-change environment. Would more tuning be necessary? Surely. But I feel pretty strongly that these changes will elevate both weapons out of trash tier, where they can be dealt with in greater detail later.






I think I've had about enough of people suggesting this... I'mm'a go put it up for vote right now and see what the guys think. Will post in here somewhere if it goes through.

I don't strongly disagree. =3

As I type this reply, this change is going in now. Cooldown is going to be 1.8 (at 0.2 change)


The amount that RACs spread is drastic in and of itself. About 20% of your shells can miss their mark at optimum range against a heavy mech. They're surprisingly inaccurate, considering I never realised they had spread at all until I saw it in the game files and went off to go test it in game. Jaw hit floor.

I wouldn't say this is a sorely needed change. In the interest of keeping the proposal clean and simple, I would omit these tunes even if they are good changes, it's just not important enough. AC10s and AC5s plenty satisfactory as they are. (at least, imo)

Baby steps. I am aware that the LB2 KGC is scarily dominant in Solaris, and the LB2 Direwolf is not an uncommon side in 12v12. Plus, two large of a spread reduction and it might as well not have any spread at all. So again... baby steps.




It might be a mech problem, but it's a mech problem that will never be solved. We do have an IS light with 8 energy hardpoints, and yet it cannot make SL or ERSL work. Right now it isn't even good with SPL. There are also some mediums where small lasers should be perfectly fine as a primary weapon. Hunchback has nine energy, Phoenix Hawk and Blackjack have eight. If (when) we get the Men Shen, it will find copious uses for the small laser family. If the Clans can make use of 6x cERSL, why shouldn't the IS be allowed to have a viable 6x ERSL?

And just as a secondary or even backup weapon, they are just pitiful right now. They're greatest contribution to the game right now is they are 0.5-ton hardpoint-shims to promote larger guns to higher hardpoints.


Although I didn't take part myself, I saw many posts of gripe and agony when PGI held an event that required the usage of cACs. Almost universal claims that it was a painful experience because cACs are just so bad. What has changed since then? =P

If Ultra ACs overshadow Standard ACs, then why are IS Standard ACs being used at all, but Clan Standard ACs are not? Mind you, Clan Ultras have worse performance stats, so the gap is closer on the Clan side between Standards and Ultras, no?


Vehemently agree to disagree. =[


Albeit, too risky. There's a reason you don't see people using them or literally ever taking them seriously.


lol, yet others request we reduce IS bias. This is so fun. xD

To be more clear I do not like community driven changes, PGI can make what ever changes they like they make the rules which is fine with me. I am here to play the game with what ever rules they come up with.

[Dragonporn]

Took a quick overview, I like most of changes and I'm generally on board with whole idea, and if it will destroy balance completely, we can just blame Tarogato, but PGI will be as innocent as ever, so I don't see why not?

Although I don't generally agree with any buffs to LBX family, aside from *maybe* 5s. This weapon system is so brutally overpowered, that giving it even one small buff will force everyone to boat it like laser vomit these days. Leave it as it is, or even nerf it to hell.

[Quandoo]

I completly disagree. On few weapons thoughts are not going far enough.
Calling Clan AC useless is nonsense.

Then get a KDK-3, put 4xAC10 + 4 medium lasers and ignore ghost heat while alpha striking. See what you get. Repeat with UAC instead of AC. I bet you kill faster with ACs - less heat, less spread, optimized cooldown.

Sometimes you can't take a weapon and compare with same weapons. We have heat, spread, jam, slots etc. to consider. Adding switching mode would mean to add and change tons of code just for one weapon.

RACs are also fine, they just need a different approach how you use them, like prewarming before your target appears.

UAC20 are also fine. It's not about using them, its about how to properly engage and attack an enemy.
I see very few people who do more than standard tactics - then they have to stick to standard setups.

Laser vomit for clan:
They are good mechs but not the best performing. Push them hard, they have one shot, maybe two. Then you have a free kill. But if people are to scared to push, like against LRM, they will tear you apart. For good reason. KDK-3 with 4x AC10 is way more deadly than laser vomit.

I would say most of those suggestions come from static gameplay. And when I see those people play ingame, I hardly see them to ever split up in lances, set traps or surround. Fix that first, then go for balancing.

One thing I would like to introduce:
Weapons heat up the air arround mechs, the more mechs you have close to each other, the less efficient your heatsinks get. They really need to put some thoughts into how to make people play this game properly without NASCAR and death ball, or dead lights/mediums before assaults fired the first shot. Maybe add nukes or LRM explosion radius?

Edited by Quandoo, 08 June 2018 - 06:42 AM.

[El Bandito]

Asym, on 08 June 2018 - 05:04 AM, said:

When I started playing MWO in Feb 2017, I was recruited to play IDF mechs... Missiles, pre-skill tree were sufficiently dangerous to have a dedicated IDF weapon specialist back then. I could effectively find, target and kill an equivalent mech at normalized distances (300 to 600 and not hiding behind cover.) Now, you can't do that at all..... What took 250 missiles now takes 400+ missiles....and, we've lost hundreds of missiliers since....they now play "other games". Why did they leave??

Tarogato was correct about your hyperbole. Hundreds of missile users gone? Don't say crap like that unless you actually have the factual numbers for it, and proof that missile nerf was the cause of all of their departure.

[lazorbeamz]

LordNothing, on 07 June 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

the first few pages pretty much boils down to: "everything sucks except clan med/large laser vomit". ive been saying this for years. it has been obvious. on the is side laser vomit is about where it should be in relation to other weapons. and i tend to run the other weapons instead only using lasers as backup.

only thing i really disagreed with is the sentiment that cacs are bad. they are not, especially the 2 (when heavily boated 6+) the 10 and 20. i often point out that a cac60 dire can alpha twice without overheating. the cac5 being the only one i really dont use (is ac5 has been in the same boat since newtech, non uac 5 class guns suck in general in comparison to their tonnage investment). the larger 2 are also the only heat neutral heavy weapons the clan has. cacs are only bad when you compare them to clan laser vomit, which we know is op. also stop killing my burstfire, i like it. gives the gun character.

another thing i didnt like was making the is and clan weapons the same, i like that they are different and have different character. other than that i agree with a lot of things.

i would have done some rethinking about gh groups, like the clan mediums/larges and micros/smalls should be their own independant groups. i dont see any reason for the small/med crossover. of course the arbitrary nature of the things no matter how you stack your groups there are going to be exploitable niches. i think it would be better to get rid of arbitrary gh groups and instead base gh on heat output over time which will be determined algorithmically. all weapons would count though i think some might be weighted higher than others (energy > missiles > ballistics). a mw2 style dh/dt gauge would be added to help players visualize their current heat output.

AC5 is only used when boated on an anihilator. ANd even then this requires you to take std engine with 40 kmh speed lol. So yes right now ac5 and CAC 5 are incredibly niche. But they can be used on 100 ton ballistic boats with 6 ballistic hardpoints. Because if you boat ac2 you lose on some DPS. And 100 tons allows you to boat ac5 just barely.

[Euri Yggdrasil]

Looks good. Maybe PGI will agree to setup a PTS with these changes to see how it goes.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Nema Nabojiv, on 08 June 2018 - 05:55 AM, said:

There are nerfs to crucial clan weapons and buffs to irrelevant ones. 100 m/s CAC5 velocity? 0.20 LB5X spread? Yay! So important, much balance.

Overall the whole list consists of insufficient buffs to bad weapons, and nerfs to few good ones. I dont see how's that different from what Chris does, and Chris is notoriously horribad at his job.

Well part of balance is making the irrelevant weapons more relevant, so I don't understand that particular line of argument.

[Stinger554]

Nameless King, on 08 June 2018 - 05:59 AM, said:

To be more clear I do not like community driven changes, PGI can make what ever changes they like they make the rules which is fine with me. I am here to play the game with what ever rules they come up with.

I'm curious on how'll you'd react if PGI did go through with some or all of these changes...

BTW a lot of balance changes(not just in MWO either) are usually based off of community feedback; that falls under community driven

Euri Yggdrasil, on 08 June 2018 - 09:59 AM, said:

Looks good. Maybe PGI will agree to setup a PTS with these changes to see how it goes.

PTS is bad with the format that PGI uses...so...I'll take a pass.

Edited by Stinger554, 08 June 2018 - 11:05 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Calling Clan AC useless is nonsense.

not really. because CAC are useless.

CUAC do more dps and take up less crits.

the only advantage CAC get is less heat, but that advantage is largely countered by the fact you can take more DHS using CUAC because they take up less crit slots.

CAC really need to be single shot like ISAC.

Edited by Khobai, 08 June 2018 - 12:41 PM.

[Stinger554]

Khobai, on 08 June 2018 - 12:23 PM, said:

CAC really need to be single shot like ISAC.

Yep. You know like how they're supposed to be a replacement for slug rounds in a LBX, but really aren't.

[AzureRathalos]

Nema Nabojiv, on 08 June 2018 - 01:59 AM, said:

Bullshіt.
Could've just make another OMG NERF CLAMS thread, save you a lot of typing.

Your reply would hold weight if you put something that actually contributed to the discussion.

Pick any weapon. Tell us what you'd want changed and why. Short. Simple. Salt-free.

[Nightbird]

Khobai, on 08 June 2018 - 12:23 PM, said:

CAC really need to be single shot like ISAC.

Only if they have 20% worse cooldown, otherwise they'll be plan superior to IS variants, like the LBX are today.

[R Valentine]

Document was named incorrectly. Should read: More stuff PGI is going to ignore.

[Rusharn]

I don't think there should be any changes to the CERML as it is the mainstay clan weapon. The damage reduction is a direct hit to almost every Clan chassis. I would prefer to see the effect of the other changes first using the CERML as the control to see how the changes effect game play. I think shell reduction counts on the Ultra auto cannons is a good thing, as hit reg is a big issue with the UCA's and anything that reduces strain on the servers is good for all players. I think the IS AC20 should have the ghost heat limit increased from 2 to 3. Other wise I am on board with trying the changes.

[Mcgral18]

Nameless King, on 08 June 2018 - 05:59 AM, said:

To be more clear I do not like community driven changes, PGI can make what ever changes they like they make the rules which is fine with me. I am here to play the game with what ever rules they come up with.

You'd better enjoy 2 second Laser durations, static minimaps and GH Mk2 then

Those are PGI inventions.
PGI doesn't always know best


You can have all the data in the world, and it's worthless if you don't know how to read it

[MTier Slayed Up]

A .5 decrease in the CERML isn't a horrible nerf, I could get behind that.

Edited by DrtyDshSoap, 08 June 2018 - 02:44 PM.

[Eisenhorne]

DrtyDshSoap, on 08 June 2018 - 02:44 PM, said:

A .5 decrease in the CERML isn't a horrible nerf, I could get behind that.

Given the nerfs PGI was thinking of giving cERML's w/ a 4 limit for Ghost Heat, a .5 damage decrease doesn't seem that bad.

[R Valentine]

Why lower the cLPL to 11 damage? Then it's equal to the ISLPL. 12 is fine. Leave it that way. It hardly gets used as is.