347 replies to this topic

[Stinger554]

process, 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?

Yes no GH, better crit damage, higher velocity. If they ever removed GH for AC20 then it might be pointless to take LB20X but until then it's a decent alternative, especially if we could use LFE with it.

[Ssamout]

Eisenhorne, on 07 June 2018 - 10:04 AM, said:

Have you played a Siege Defend on Boreal Vault on a team with a with multiple LRM boats and a NARC spotter? It's insane, you can drill anything out instantly. LRM's are deadly if used with a coordinated team on an appropriate map. Boreal, Polar, Caustic, and Alpine are all possible maps where you can use LRM's in FP. If you buffed them to make them useful without the support team, they would be beyond overpowered in faction play. The problem with LRM's in quick play is that they are an extremely situational weapon that requires an appropriate map and support team. If you don't have both of those, they are useless.

No. Lrms have to work on every map and in every situation. Only then there can be balance.

[Eisenhorne]

Ssamout, on 07 June 2018 - 10:10 AM, said:

No. Lrms have to work on every map and in every situation. Only then there can be balance.

Not only do they have to work in every map and situation, they should also be the best choice at any given time. We should also rename MWO : S7 to MWO : Lurmaggeddon. Obviously this is what the people want!

[process]

Ssamout, on 07 June 2018 - 10:10 AM, said:

No. Lrms have to work on every map and in every situation. Only then there can be balance.

The goal should be to close the gap between useless and overpowered, not making them a jack-of-all-trades weapon like the medium laser. They are long range missiles after all, they should remain somewhat situational.

Edited by process, 07 June 2018 - 10:17 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

looks good, i wouldnt mind seeing these changes on the PTS when Chris gets it all started,

[Ssamout]

process, on 07 June 2018 - 10:16 AM, said:

The goal should be to close the gap between useless and overpowered, not making them a jack-of-all-trades weapon like the medium laser. They are long range missiles after all, they should remain somewhat situational.

No. If I want to use lrms in a city fight, they have to work. It would be stupid if I would be forced to take any other weapons as I already have payed for these launchers.

[TheArisen]

These seem good to me. I hope PGI does take a these into consideration.

[Eisenhorne]

Ssamout, on 07 June 2018 - 10:30 AM, said:

No. If I want to use lrms in a city fight, they have to work. It would be stupid if I would be forced to take any other weapons as I already have payed for these launchers.

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. If so, very nice job. If not.... less nice.

[Y E O N N E]

Pretty solid, but I see a major "oops" with regard to the Ultra AC/20s:

Let's recap, using your numbers (IS v Clan):

Tons: 15 vs 12
Slots: 10 vs 8
Heat: 7 vs 7
Shells: 3 vs 3
Range 270 vs 360
Velocity: 850 vs 850
Cooldown: 4 vs 4
Jam Duration: 6 vs 6.5
Jam DPS: 7.23 vs 6.87

IS Pros? +0.46 jam DPS.
Clan Pros? -3 tons, -2 slots, +90 meters range.

Do you think the IS pros are equivalent to the Clan ones? I do not. That us a pitiful DPS advantage for a, frankly, massive disadvantage in range and resource usage. With that shell reduction on the Clan one, you cannot justify that range delta; after skills the cUAC/20 is going to he hitting a mere 36 meters short of a stock isUAC/10 for one less ton and one more slot while the isUAC/20 struggles at a mediocre 310.

Something needs to give, there.

[process]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 June 2018 - 11:20 AM, said:

Something needs to give, there.

I think Clan UAC should keep the +1 shell, but either have the jam chance or jam duration decreased.

[TheArisen]

So Russ tweeted that they've been discussing this

[FupDup]

This is pretty reasonable for the most part, unlike the previous community panel that was basically catering to bringing back 2 ERPPC + 2 Gauss builds.

My main gripes are:

>Clan ACs getting one less shell makes them even more similar to IS ACs. Stop making things the same. If anything I'd rather go in the opposite direction but give compensation like velocity or cooldown to make the burst-fire downside worth it. Just don't homogenize things please.

>Making IS Gauss less fragile is good, but using random chance to achieve that is not. All explosion chances should be 100%, RNGesus needs to be taken out back and shot. Increase the item health and reduce the explosion damage instead.

>While we're at it, I think the Clan Gauss could also use some of that treatment (but to a much lower extent obviously). Its super fragile nature makes it prohibitive on many Clan chassis, particularly in torso mounts.

>As a minor gripe, I don't think subtracting 0.1 cooldown off the SRM2 is going to help it in any noticeable way. I think that its niche should instead be very tight spread so that it can make efficient use of its very low damage.

>The RAC spread reductions feel a little too drastic, IMO.

>No IS AC/10 velocity buff? I am disappoint. And frankly the AC/5 needs one as well.

>LB 2-X needs a larger spread reduction.


Those are the main things I can think of off the top of my head, without nitpicking every single little decimal value.

[Nightbird]

I like how much effort was put into this, I agree and disagree with some of the conclusions and I'll focus below on the high priority feedback ones.

High priority feedback comments:

Small lasers: disagree. Clan small lasers are fine, IS suffer from light mech choice with insufficient energy points, it's not a weapon problem. For mediums and above, small lasers shouldn't be a primary weapon anyways.

Clan auto-cannon: disagree, they're all usable. Clan UACs are just powerful that despite Clan AC and LBX being superior to IS versions, there's no need to take them. Tune down C-UACs the same way that IS UACs have drawbacks (heat, weight, size pellet), is the only way to solve this.

Artemis: Disagree on SRMs, I still use them and feel they're absolutely worth the tonnage. No comment on LRMs.

Rotaries: Disagree, they're like MRMs. Less effective than PPFLD and spreading, but high damage padding. Maybe at most allow the weapon to shoot during ramp up at a reduced rate.

UAC20s: disagree, they're effective but risky, take a non jaming version as stated in lore if you want consistency, no upgrades here

Light gauss: agree, this or, just allow charging 4.

LBX 2/5: Agree but without making them ACs with extra crit chance so either cooldown or spread, not both.

Clan Lasers: Disagree, change. HLL to 16 damage and reduce cooldown, duration, heat by 1/9. No other changes needed.

Disagree: Make dead zone 1/2 damage, add 45 meters to snub optimal range.

IS LBX 20: Agree for 10 slots until crit splitting and ammo change is implemented, but would still be inferior to clan version. Please reduce spread to 0.9.

Laser AMS: No comment, never used it

Conclusion: please reduce clan bias.

Edited by Nightbird, 07 June 2018 - 12:13 PM.

[MrXanthios]

agreed on all buffs to IS lasers

disagree to damage buff for cspl

cerml needs more nerf

we need to let people mix single and double heatsinks to help IS mechs, which are far behind with anything involving lasers and probably reducing IS dhs to 2 slot wouldn't be a bad idea

[SFC174]

Tarogato, on 07 June 2018 - 07:49 AM, said:

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.

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.

In the interests of keeping the proposed changes as light as possible (for PGI's sake ) I'd say just drop the CLPL changes for now.

On the MGs, it wouldn't be a dramatic range difference. Max range would remain about the same, but optimal range could go up by 20% or so. Would give the IS mechs with fewer guns the ability to do optimal dmg a little further away. Just a thought, but I don't think MG dmg buffs are going to fly with the community right now simply because MG=PIR in most player's minds and there is a lot of FUD when it comes to the avg player's view of the PIR chassis and what it does in game (I like the little buggers, but it's impact and lethality is exaggerated to near Chuck Norris levels IMO).

[lazorbeamz]

People overestimate te importance of ACs being single shot. From a mathematical standpoint there is no diffirence between single shot and multi shot cannons because you aim them similarly. Put crosshairs on your target and estimate lead if neccessary thats all. They both hit or miss similarly. The only diffirence would be if you want to shoot and twist but we re at the point that twisting is rarely useful. And that is only appliable with AC20. AC10 is already fast firing enough that it is facetime DPS weapon, especially with those IS cooldown quirks. The whole topic about clan autocannons is really blown out of proportion and no they are not placeholder LB ac. They are separate weapons which you choose to use if you want cold ballistic weapons on clan mechs. You could use clan LBX but then your weapons are not effective at 200+ meters against heavy/assaults. Unlike CAC weapons.

Clan small lasers have been nerfed a bit quite recently. They received a cooldown increase and i think it is an indication that these weapons have been too good. 5 damage for 0.5 tons is even better then CERML with 7 for 1.

Clan laser vomit is not a problem anymore. I think Solaris has informed us on the meta quite a bit. We dont need IS laser buffs or we might actually push the game further towards laser spamming.

IS MG need no buff. They are less numerous then Clan MGs but they are more effective. They have much better crit modifiers and less spread. Crit modifiers increase their DPS against structure. If i remember correctly, clan MGs deal 175% against structure. IS MGs deal 200%.

They shouldnt buff light gauss because this weapon is going to heavily overshadow AC10 as soon as you do.


I want to have 1100 m/s velocities for AC20 and UAC20. These weapons have huge range damage falloff and need no additional penalties for distance shooting imo. 600 m/s is prohibitively bad to shoot them at anything other than stationary assaults and heavies.

Edited by lazorbeamz, 07 June 2018 - 01:07 PM.

[BrunoSSace]

I think the small lasers got to much damage. They shouldn't be the same damage as small pulse.

[Angel of Annihilation]

While I am absolutely tired of all the changes that continual take place in this and subscribe to the leave the hell alone theory, surprisingly this proposal is actually reasonable and a hell of alot better than what PGI can come up.

I am at work so can't dig into the details all that much but there is one thing that really stood out to me that I don't agree with.

The Clan ER LL.

I honestly feel that the Clan ER LL is one of the most inferior clan weapons there is due to their already long cooldown combined with an absurdly long beam duration. Even with over 110 Clan mechs I don't think I have ER LLs on more than half dozen of them because of how bad they feel to me.

The thing about range is that aside from a little bit of long range shooting at the beginning of the match, most combat in the game takes place between 200-500m and because the Clan ER LL gets penalized so much for all that mostly useless range, it doesn't do well at all where most of the fighting takes place. I will always mount either a LPL or HLL in the place of a ER LL.

As for the HLL, while I don't really think there is much wrong with it as is, I think I would be willing to trade a couple points of damage for less heat. Honestly that massive spike they receive is a bit much and many builds that look like they should work with HLLs don't just because of that heat spike. A Reduction in heat however would open up the HLL to a bit more builds so I would at least be ok with testing the less damage, less heat version.

[Eisenhorne]

Viktor Drake, on 07 June 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

While I am absolutely tired of all the changes that continual take place in this and subscribe to the leave the hell alone theory, surprisingly this proposal is actually reasonable and a hell of alot better than what PGI can come up.

I am at work so can't dig into the details all that much but there is one thing that really stood out to me that I don't agree with.

The Clan ER LL.

I honestly feel that the Clan ER LL is one of the most inferior clan weapons there is due to their already long cooldown combined with an absurdly long beam duration. Even with over 110 Clan mechs I don't think I have ER LLs on more than half dozen of them because of how bad they feel to me.

The thing about range is that aside from a little bit of long range shooting at the beginning of the match, most combat in the game takes place between 200-500m and because the Clan ER LL gets penalized so much for all that mostly useless range, it doesn't do well at all where most of the fighting takes place. I will always mount either a LPL or HLL in the place of a ER LL.

As for the HLL, while I don't really think there is much wrong with it as is, I think I would be willing to trade a couple points of damage for less heat. Honestly that massive spike they receive is a bit much and many builds that look like they should work with HLLs don't just because of that heat spike. A Reduction in heat however would open up the HLL to a bit more builds so I would at least be ok with testing the less damage, less heat version.

The thing about ERLL's, is that in comp play and faction play, you can have engagement ranges of 1 KM or more. The clan ERLL is an absolutely devastating weapon at that range. A Supernova with a massive TCOMP and ERLL's is brutal at those ranges. It seems like the changes are to make the ERLL less useful at the ranges where the HLL should shine, because right now they perform similarly.

[lazorbeamz]

And well if you want to change 7 damage cerml to 6.5 dmg all i can say that at this point you are nitpicking and the balance is actually close to best we can get.