347 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

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

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?

I feel like this is a red herring. IS ACs are lighter and smaller than IS Ultras. The same is not true of Clan ACs compared to Clan Ultras and, in fact, said Clan ACs occupy more resources in the form of slots. When IS take ACs, they don't really gain much because their Ultras are still PPFLD or only one shell off until you get to the 20. So all they gain is reduced resource usage. Clans have no such incentive.

[Khobai]

I still dont like the idea of balancing weapons in such a way that it completely ignores the other tech base imbalances.

Lowering heat on IS lasers is a cop-out fix. While the real fix should be buffing IS-DHS.

IS-DHS take up 3 crit slots so they should be better than C-DHS which only take up 2 crit slots. IS-DHS should all be true double heatsinks, thats the only way to reconcile them taking up an extra crit slot.

Buffing IS-DHS, buffing IS ferro/endo, and buffing IS-XL so it survives side torso destruction (and also buffing LFE and STD to match) should be a non-negotiable part of any community balance proposal. All those imbalances contribute to IS having less weapons on their mechs, it makes more sense to fix those core issues directly, rather than try to bandaid them with weapon fixes alone.

If youre going to propose balancing the game... do it right. Dont half *** it again.

Yeonne Greene, on 07 June 2018 - 09:22 PM, said:

]I feel like this is a red herring. IS ACs are lighter and smaller than IS Ultras. The same is not true of Clan ACs compared to Clan Ultras and, in fact, said Clan ACs occupy more resources in the form of slots. When IS take ACs, they don't really gain much because their Ultras are still PPFLD or only one shell off until you get to the 20. So all they gain is reduced resource usage. Clans have no such incentive.

ACs just need a better defined role.

ACs should get better damage per shot, better range, and better velocity than UACs

while UACs focus primarily on DPS


and Clan ACs arnt used because they not only weigh more/take up more crit slots than Clan UACs, but still arnt single shot either. While the opposite is true for IS.

Clan ACs need to be single shot. But with longer cooldown and higher heat than IS ACs.

Also ACs on both sides should outrange and outvelocity UACs.

Edited by Khobai, 07 June 2018 - 09:46 PM.

[Tarogato]

lazorbeamz, on 07 June 2018 - 01:00 PM, said:

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%.

Check the spreadsheet and you'll find toward the right a column for CritDPS. This is the damage against structure, incorporating crit chance and the crit damage multipliers.

For instance, if we assume MG vs cMG.

2.33 average CritDPS versus 1.73 average CritDPS

IS mounts 4x MG, and clan mounts 6x cMG.

9.32 CritDPS versus 10.38 CritDPS

Clan here is 11% better. Plus Clan has the MLX and PIR, which carry even more MGs. Furthermore, the IS mechs have to sacrifice more than twice the tonnage to mount their MGs to achieve a similar DPS (remember, not only are IS MGs twice as heavy as Clan, but Clan also has better weight savings with cFerro). This is also ignoring that Clan carries many more energy weapons in addition to their MGs, which IS mechs don't even have the hardpoints for. The net end result is that Clan consistently comes out on top.

Quote

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

So Light Gauss is already fine just the way it is?

lazorbeamz, on 07 June 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

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.

For what it's worth, 6.0 was considered. But it required fairly drastic compensation, plus the potential to treat some innocent pure cERML boats unfairly (such as the ADR, JR7-IIC, IFR, ACW...)

[Khobai]

Tarogato, on 07 June 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

This is also ignoring that Clan carries many more energy weapons in addition to their MGs, which IS mechs don't even have the hardpoints for. The net end result is that Clan consistently comes out on top.

the problem is hardpoints.

so give IS mechs more hardpoints.

dont try to bandaid around the actual issue. thats no different from what PGI does.

if IS mgs are inferior because IS lack hardpoints, than suggest IS mechs get more hardpoints. Dont try to balance IS mgs in an unnatural way that sidesteps the real problem.

This whole balance approach is illogical.

Tarogato, on 07 June 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

plus the potential to treat some innocent pure cERML boats unfairly (such as the ADR, JR7-IIC, IFR, ACW...)

CERML should definitely be 6 damage and they would be fine there

provided they also received appropriately reduced heat, cooldown, and beam duration

and how does it treat them unfairly?

6 CERML at 6 damage is still better than 6 ISERML at 5 damage

even at +1 damage clans still maintain their damage advantage. its just 20% instead of a ridiculous 40%.

we could even get rid of some of the over-the-top IS laser quirks then. because IS wouldnt need as many quirks to try and make up for a 40% damage gap anymore.

Edited by Khobai, 07 June 2018 - 10:01 PM.

[Tarogato]

Asym, on 07 June 2018 - 07:58 PM, said:

Return ARTEMIS to it's original state.

We accept that PGI is hesitant to buff, and we don't wish to suggest steps that are too far and could require a backpedal correction.

For instance, our Artemis buff is a compromise. PGI felt that Artemis was too strong previously, they nerfed it. We feel it is too weak now. Instead of asking to return it back to where it was, we suggest to meet in the middle.

Quote

Increase velocity and reduce spread. Especially, with streaks. Make missiles as deadly as the rest of the weapons classes... Why have them, if they aren't.... Look, the brawling community wants their lasers and ballistic weapons fixed and you'all did a good job from what I've seen addressing some of the earlier nerfs (like the Spl and Medium lasers...)

We did reduce spread of SRMs, this isn't just about lasers and ballistic buffs. As I pointed out before, baseline cSRM buffs are suggested, and the global Artemis buff. Streaks in particular are already plenty deadly against lights. If you want them to be effective against anything heavier than lights, then they will absolutely obliterate lights to an unfair and unfun degree. Unless you change how they fundamentally work.

Quote

Now, let's get serious with missiles. If not, get rid of the whole weapons class..... Of course, you'd lose a bunch of pilots over that. All I'm asking for is equity. With equity, game play will evolve because missiles can and should be able to "stand on their own" and be effective. There are plenty of anti-missile tools to use.... I'd make the effective and just as deadly as energy and ballistic weapons and then, we'd see a game that absolutely demands the use of cover and concealment.

Right now, it takes a SNV-A a while to kill a fresh mech in the open... 80 LRM's a throw.... That's a lot of HE going somewhere and it should hurt to get clobbered by it... I'm just asking for equity.

I feel like you are asking less for equity, and more for unadulterated superiority. We are not so far off from good missile balance as to necessitate the hyperbolic tone you are taking on here, and frankly I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

Yeonne Greene, on 07 June 2018 - 09:22 PM, said:

I feel like this is a red herring. IS ACs are lighter and smaller than IS Ultras. The same is not true of Clan ACs compared to Clan Ultras and, in fact, said Clan ACs occupy more resources in the form of slots. When IS take ACs, they don't really gain much because their Ultras are still PPFLD or only one shell off until you get to the 20. So all they gain is reduced resource usage. Clans have no such incentive.

You might be right, but I don't see this as a good justification to nerf cUACs, as was suggested.

Though, the whole matter (cAC buff via shell-count versus velocity) is still up for debate. Anything else you can provide in terms of opinion/experience/justification is welcome.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Tarogato, on 07 June 2018 - 09:15 PM, said:

UPDATE:



SRM2, cSRM2
- buff increased from "pathetically small" to "perhaps tangible."


Streak2, cStreak2
- Cooldown buff added, to match with the SRM2 and cSRM2


Gauss family
- HP buff instead of ExplodeChance buff: currently under deliberation (looking likely)


Clan Standard ACs
- velocity buff instead of shell-count buff: currently under deliberation (looking less likely but still possible)

What about burst-time reductions for multi-shell ballistics? I've got this vision of a world where all ultras were 3-5 round bursts, but with extremely short burst times to further differentiate them from standards and slightly shorter cooldowns to compensate.

I'd also like to see their double-tap jam dynamic changed so that jam durations are massively reduced and jam rates massively increased. As they are now, the expectation of the player is that UACs are unlikely to jam, so the inevitable jam is an unpleasant and potentially fatal event. The RNG mechanic would be much more palatable for the user if instead, jams were extremely common and a non-jamming double-tap were a welcome surprise.

If set the numbers so that double-tapping has slightly lower DPS than standard shots, you would make double-tapping more of a conscious decision. Double-taps would be used as finishers, disables, desperate last moves, and burst options in the trading phase instead of the current "always double-tap and pray to RNGesus".

[WhineyThePoo]

Nope.
Still seeing a clan gauss that is superior to the IS with no real downside. And you want to add clan AC's to that list? Thats a double nope.
No changes to the massive imbalance in regards to endo, ferro, heatsinks and engine? That makes this a tripple nope.

[Tarogato]

WhineyThePoo, on 07 June 2018 - 10:12 PM, said:

Still seeing a clan gauss that is superior to the IS with no real downside.

cGauss is really fragile and has fallen out of favour over the past two years. It's really only used on a select few chassis anymore, there's a lot less diversity. =/

Tbh, we were actually considering a buff to cGauss HP so it doesn't instasplode so much. As right now the only mechs that really run cGauss, are the ones that are good at avoiding the instasplosions, such as the MCII.

We did buff IS Gauss cooldown slightly, though. It will now sync better with laser accompaniment.

Kaeb Odellas, on 07 June 2018 - 10:11 PM, said:

What about burst-time reductions for multi-shell ballistics? I've got this vision of a world where all ultras were 3-5 round bursts, but with extremely short burst times to further differentiate them from standards and slightly shorter cooldowns to compensate.

I believe you're referring to the VolleyDelay stat. The time between shells fired. And I've heard from Paul that at 0.11s, it is presently about as low as it can possibly go before hitreg will mistreat it. Whether or not I believe him is another matter, but I don't know the real reasoning behind it.

Quote

I'd also like to see their double-tap jam dynamic changed so that jam durations are massively reduced and jam rates massively increased. As they are now, the expectation of the player is that UACs are unlikely to jam, so the inevitable jam is an unpleasant and potentially fatal event. The RNG mechanic would be much more palatable for the user if instead, jams were extremely common and a non-jamming double-tap were a welcome surprise.

We had a somewhat similar adjustment to this last time around. However, we decided to eliminate it because affected an entire weapon family, and it wasn't really so much an actual problem as it was just a quality of life kinda gripe, and it added clutter to the proposal as a whole.

[dwwolf]

LBX cannons will remain useless.
The only fix is to give them a fixed spread that doesnt balloon.

That would also follow BT tt mechanics with the same damage and to hit modifier across all ranges.
Rather than a mech shotgun the tt mechanics are more in line with proximity fused shells.

[El Bandito]

Clan AC5, if buffed to single slug, seems to be every bit better than that of IS AC5. So I suggest extra velocity or slight cooldown buff for IS AC5.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2018 - 11:33 PM.

[dwwolf]

El Bandito, on 07 June 2018 - 11:31 PM, said:

Clan AC5, if buffed to single slug, seems to be every bit better than that of IS AC5. So I suggest extra velocity or slight cooldown buff for IS AC5.

4 damage 80% cooldown 80% heat ?

Slightly less precise damage application and faster firing.
The same but different.

One thing that always pissed me off about IS LBX autocannons is that the design MO for the LBX AC was always weight savings.
And that that only happened with the original LB10X.
Would 5.5 tons / 7.5 tons / 13 tons really have killed of game balance for TT battletech ? Eapecially when ACs have always been thought of as being overweight...especially at the low end.

[MischiefSC]

A lot of great stuff but I admit - it feels very 'by committee'. At a certain point too many compromises result in a less dynamic result. Maybe that's for the best, I mean asking PGI to make significant changes is probably a waste of time.

Instead of messing with jam chance for UACs, reduce UAC velocity. Increase standard AC (Clan/IS) velocity significantly. Reduce LBX cooldown by a bit. Both UAC and LBX will compete a bit for the ballistic DPS role but in very different spaces and the standard ballistics will focus on precision and range accuracy - that will compete with the Gauss, which to be honest is in a bad place for IS and Clans and needs addressed in a totally different balance bracket.

I'm also going to echo the bits about imbalance on engines, DHS/Endo/FF. Comparing weapon to weapon stats is great but in practice the Clans are going to have better cooling, more tonnage and more space and often more hardpoints to use it all with. If you removed Clan weapons entirely and just made it all IS weapons the Clan mechs would generally still be stronger because CDHS/CXL/CEndo/CFF.

I know, you offer a good, strong set of suggestions that will IMO absolutely move the game some measurable clicks toward 'better' on the dial. I'd be happy to see them in. I hate to seem like I'm saying 'yeah, good, but it still needs more cow bell.' However these are big pieces that need addressed and doing so impacts weapon balance.

[El Bandito]

dwwolf, on 07 June 2018 - 11:47 PM, said:

4 damage 80% cooldown 80% heat ?

Slightly less precise damage application and faster firing.
The same but different.

One thing that always pissed me off about IS LBX autocannons is that the design MO for the LBX AC was always weight savings.
And that that only happened with the original LB10X.
Would 5.5 tons / 7.5 tons / 13 tons really have killed of game balance for TT battletech ? Eapecially when ACs have always been thought of as being overweight...especially at the low end.

What pisses me off is the fact that PGI refuses to touch the canon tonnage and slot requirements for weapons and equipment. If they were more flexible on those regards, the entire balancing process woulda been far smoother.

Even bloody Harebrained Schemes have changed slot requirements for a single player turn based game named "Battletech", so why the **** can't PGI change them in a FPS arena MP only game? You can equip TWO AC20s on a single arm in Battletech, FFS.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 June 2018 - 11:58 PM.

[MischiefSC]

El Bandito, on 07 June 2018 - 11:53 PM, said:

What pisses me off is the fact that PGI refuses to touch the canon tonnage and slot requirements for weapons and equipment. If they were more flexible on those regards, the entire balancing process woulda been far smoother.

HBS Battletech changed mechs lots. Look at the CT. They made some very sweeping changes that IMO made things better while keeping to the original intent. The problem with treating game design canon like religious document canon is that you can't integrate improvements as you find problems through experience. This creates legacy issues that have plagued BT for 30 years and were resolved by more or less throwing it all out and starting over (Dark Ages). The problem there is it all had to be 'new and better', resulting in an environment made of pure, unmitigated powercreep.

What's needed (and what HBS made a great stab at) is accepting that mistakes were made and rectifying them with the lens of 30 years of results, multiple boardgame changes and more than a half dozen computer games.

[LordNothing]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 June 2018 - 09:22 PM, said:

I feel like this is a red herring. IS ACs are lighter and smaller than IS Ultras. The same is not true of Clan ACs compared to Clan Ultras and, in fact, said Clan ACs occupy more resources in the form of slots. When IS take ACs, they don't really gain much because their Ultras are still PPFLD or only one shell off until you get to the 20. So all they gain is reduced resource usage. Clans have no such incentive.

the is acs need to be smaller and lighter than their uac equivalent because you need a lesser version to deal with the weight of the lfe/std engine, the bulkiness of is heat sinks, ferro and endo upgrades and the like. is ballistics are huge and heavy and the lower numbers on the standard guns are needed for the weapons to be viable.

on the clan side everything is a ton or two lighter. and with the exception of the cac 2 and 5, take up fewer slots. not just the guns but the upgrades too. the cacs are disadvantaged by only one slot over the equivalent uac, not a big deal. its not uncommon for a build to have surplus slots available anyway and i just dont see it as a major drawback. the relevant difference is heat, range, and reliability. the range is the biggest advantage.

the cac2 is the longest optimal range direct fire weapon in the game with a very respectable max range too (smaller than the one on the lb, not that spread doesn't render that number irrelevant). when compared to the is ac2 you get a weapon thats a ton lighter, a slot bigger and still get a huge range advantage (180 extra meters). two pros for a single con. with the skill tree factored in you can do full damage at over a click away. when compared to the cuac2 its a little bit cooler and doesnt jam. the choice between them is often based on the mechs hardpoints, its better to boat the cac2 if you can carry more than 4, otherwise your mech can probibly handle the heat of the uac2. each have their own niche.

the cac10 and cac20 is desirable not because range (in fact it has no range advantage over the uac, its the same) but because of heat. specifically the self ghost heat you get from the uac20 and the same problem when dual wielding uac10s. in this case the uacs are not really boatable options, but the cacs are. separate niches. now the heat advantage is not much, but its huge when you are that close to the red line as those weapons get. compared to the is side you get more range, less weight and less space, and it only costs you the trouble of keeping your burst on target. if you fix the uac10s and 20s, you will probibly need to buff the cac as well to maintain its niche. i support the velocity buffs for these 2 cacs, i do not support burst reduction (because i like bursts).

the cac5 is the hardest sell, despite having both a heat advantage and a range advantage over the is version. its kind of awkward as a 2 round burst weapon given its low damage. other than that its still better than the is ac5 in every way. the major difference is the is ac5 has a niche, a lower tonnage lower space alternative to the uac5. the cac5 on the other hand has no such niche. the uac5 is cool enough to boat 3 or fewer. and when you boat 3 uacs of any size jams become a lot more managable, reliability ceases to be a selling point. however to be fair the entire non-uac 5 line is in suckville right now. if you fix the 5 line then major buffs are in order. i think id look at reducing its cd and go for a higher dps. take the burst up to 3 because 2 looks wierd.

of course all that goes out the window when you look at clan lasers and see them as meta gods. no cac no cuac can compete with that.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Tarogato, on 07 June 2018 - 06:23 AM, said:

> Balance Proposal Document

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

[Ensaine]

Overall, the proposed changes look good......sure, we can all nickel and dime it, but guys, look at a few facts:

We need a good baseline. PTS these changes, and go from there. But if we give PGI too much to digest, they'll never crap out anything worthwhile.

The fact that 'a few' made this proposal is a non fact. Who cares how many people made it? Is it a good baseline to start? IMO, yes. It's a step in the right direction.

One thing I didn't see, and was suggested by another poster, is any changes DHS's. These should be addressed in this baseline, IMO.

I say PGI should package these changes, completely, fire up the PTS, and lets have a go. Then, we can nickel and dime.

[Asym]

Tarogato, on 07 June 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

We accept that PGI is hesitant to buff, and we don't wish to suggest steps that are too far and could require a backpedal correction.

For instance, our Artemis buff is a compromise. PGI felt that Artemis was too strong previously, they nerfed it. We feel it is too weak now. Instead of asking to return it back to where it was, we suggest to meet in the middle.

We did reduce spread of SRMs, this isn't just about lasers and ballistic buffs. As I pointed out before, baseline cSRM buffs are suggested, and the global Artemis buff. Streaks in particular are already plenty deadly against lights. If you want them to be effective against anything heavier than lights, then they will absolutely obliterate lights to an unfair and unfun degree. Unless you change how they fundamentally work.

I feel like you are asking less for equity, and more for unadulterated superiority. We are not so far off from good missile balance as to necessitate the hyperbolic tone you are taking on here, and frankly I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

First, thanks for the response... As to "taking me seriously", well, I'm sorry you feel that way and I do appreciate the effort to suggest changes... MWO has lost thousands of players over the past year. Because, PGI didn't take "all of us" seriously and look where we are.

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??

Because PGI was creating Solaris and Solaris absolutely didn't need effective short range missiles.... It's a Arena FPS and the brawling community was still howling all day long to get rid of all missiles and missiles tech. Radar dep, ECM and AMS wasn't enough. So, here we are..... What I could do 14 months ago is impossible today.....and, our population lost a large number of us that have fun playing with missile technologies.... I know, too bad......boo hoo. But, if we just had "parity"; a serious balance of systems that allows for IDF, we might be able to coax those whom have left back. We, myself included, don't play S7.....we don't brawl at all nor care to.... I talked to our team CPT last night and he is the only one of 51 of us playing S7... The rest are P/T, one night a week, if at all, players......point is, what this balance initiative is doing is giving us some hope....we love this game.....

[Jay Leon Hart]

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.

Number of Clan nerfs;
8

Number of Clan buffs;
34

Maybe read the document next time?

[process]

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.

There are an awful lot of Clan buffs in there yano.