347 replies to this topic

[process]

Metachanic, on 07 June 2018 - 08:31 AM, said:

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.

Yeah, I definitely support a velocity increase for the standard AC20, I'm just worried closing the velocity gap will throw off the value of the LB20X.

[Montoya IIC]

So many well considered, positive changes here. I wish these were patch notes. PGI PLZ.

[Metachanic]

Asym, on 07 June 2018 - 08:37 AM, said:

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.

Missiles were not ignored. See Artemis spread buff, MRM cooldown buffs, Clan SRM2 and ATM3 cooldown, Clan SRM4 and SRM6 base spread, and IS LRM heat buffs.

JC Daxion, on 07 June 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

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

We deliberately avoided anything that requires a fundamental re-work of game mechanics, to make the changes easier to implement with more predictable outcomes.

process, on 07 June 2018 - 08:41 AM, said:

Yeah, I definitely support a velocity increase for the standard AC20, I'm just worried closing the velocity gap will throw off the value of the LB20X.

If all goes well, the AC20 velocity increase and heat buff will balance out the reduced LB20X velocity and smaller size. The idea is to create an interesting trade-off between the two.

Edited by Metachanic, 07 June 2018 - 08:54 AM.

[Nameless King]

Sorry but I am against it.

[suffocater]

I am all for it. The only addition from me would be raising the ghostheat limt of AC20/CAC20 by one.

[Eisenhorne]

Nameless King, on 07 June 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

Sorry but I am against it.

Any particular reason why?

[Metachanic]

suffocater, on 07 June 2018 - 09:06 AM, said:

I am all for it. The only addition from me would be raising the ghostheat limt of AC20/CAC20 by one.

This was discussed extensively, especially since we're in a world with dual heavy gauss and LB20Xs. We're in favor of dropping the ghost heat spike for firing two, for the time being. Incremental step.

Nameless King, on 07 June 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

Sorry but I am against it.

Feedback needs to be more specific if it's to be addressed properly.

Edited by Metachanic, 07 June 2018 - 09:13 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Metachanic, on 07 June 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

We deliberately avoided anything that requires a fundamental re-work of game mechanics, to make the changes easier to implement with more predictable outcomes.

They have already made the energy draw system, it is basicaly Ghost heat 2.0,.,. It should be revisited.

[Dogstar]

I'm sorry but I don't think this is much of an improvement. While tweaking the numbers will improve balance it doesn't make any interesting changes like making LRMs fun, preventing enormous clan laser alphas, or making bracket builds viable(!).

I appreciate that this might be the only way to effect any change but it's not enough - it feels like you're fiddling the spreadsheets while Rome burns to the ground

Edited by Dogstar, 07 June 2018 - 09:22 AM.

[Nameless King]

Eisenhorne, on 07 June 2018 - 09:06 AM, said:

Any particular reason why?

I dislike anything a small group of players come up with. Balance is an ever changing endeavor and can never be static.

[Sjorpha]

I like it, fully support this.

[Eisenhorne]

Nameless, that's not really a good reason why you don't like the specific proposed changes. Current balance changes by PGI come from an even smaller group of people.

[Metachanic]

Dogstar, on 07 June 2018 - 09:21 AM, said:

I appreciate that this might be the only way to effect any change but it's not enough - it feels like you're fiddling the spreadsheets while Rome burns to the ground

Continuing your metaphor, weapon balance is one of the fires, and the most straightforward one to put out. Ignoring the philosophical side, may I ask why reducing CHLL and CERML damage and buffing Clan SRM spread and smaller laser performance doesn't create a more interesting game?

[Nameless King]

Eisenhorne, on 07 June 2018 - 09:30 AM, said:

Nameless, that's not really a good reason why you don't like the specific proposed changes. Current balance changes by PGI come from an even smaller group of people.

Yes it is, it is there game, I am just here to play with the rules provided.

[Jackal Noble]

So, basically IS buff across the board, with a few touches on useless clan weapon systems.
Is this to be paired with a reduction of quirks?

[Asym]

Metachanic, on 07 June 2018 - 08:53 AM, said:

Missiles were not ignored. See Artemis spread buff, MRM cooldown buffs, Clan SRM2 and ATM3 cooldown, Clan SRM4 and SRM6 base spread, and IS LRM heat buffs.


We deliberately avoided anything that requires a fundamental re-work of game mechanics, to make the changes easier to implement with more predictable outcomes.


If all goes well, the AC20 velocity increase and heat buff will balance out the reduced LB20X velocity and smaller size. The idea is to create an interesting trade-off between the two.

I saw that and that and appreciate some very small improvements.... But, they aren't nearly sufficient in terms of overall balance. Missiles should be as lethal as any other weapons system, then and only then, do you have a balance...

I know, that will ruffle some feathers but, if we are to be serious about balance, let's get really serious. Systems DPS parity should be the goal....otherwise, get rid of missiles completely, which would make a lot of people happy.... 1/2 a weapons system is no weapons system.

[Shinskii]

Commenting in support of these changes; it'd be a start!

[Stinger554]

JC Daxion, on 07 June 2018 - 09:17 AM, said:

They have already made the energy draw system, it is basicaly Ghost heat 2.0,.,. It should needs to be revisited.

FTFY

[Eisenhorne]

Asym, on 07 June 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

Missiles should be as lethal as any other weapons system, then and only then, do you have a balance...

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.

[Jackal Noble]

Maybe with the less useless IS quirked lrm, yes, that would be fun and work.