347 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

FupDup, on 07 June 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

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.

I agree there

Their approach just makes them closer to the UAC in role, but with velocity, it could become a new role, of mid-long range Poking/Trading

Closer to the Gauss in practice, without a charge
More concentrated damage doesn't change their poor range, and they'd still be an inferior weapon to the UAC at close range


More effective range (not the stat, functionally) due to velocity gives them a different, but useful role
Perhaps not at the Competitive level, but for those who don't want to lead 3 meters in front of a target, it would be welcome.

[ShiverMeRivets]

I am not as experienced as the players that took part in composing this paper, but I tend to disagree with most of the proposed changes. While the analysis of the problems is mostly correct in my view, the proposed solutions will result in significant buffs across the abord to damage output.

There are some weapons that just must not be buffed in my view. RACs are one such kind. These are "stun lock" weapons that completely disable any offensive response from the player being attacked. If the are made any better in damage, they much jam a lot more often, to prevent both stun-locking the opponent and killing him quickly.

UACs are stupid weapons that should be made to suck. Really? For. 1 more ton you double the damage of the AC? If you make UAC20 a good weapon it will be ridiculous. The original idea of them jamming permanently is how they should work. This will make people really think twice before double-tapping. For now it's boat a bunch of them and hapilly tap away.

With all due respect, players usually have no clue about what is good for game inspite of being so sure that they do. Myself included. I much prefer that the developers do this and then we can come here and complain of how they suck at it. Still, in my experience, "the community" sucks at this even more.

Nice document, but PGI should make their own research and own decisions.

[Mcgral18]

ShiverMeRivets, on 07 June 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

Nice document, but PGI should make their own research and own decisions.

Oof, that's gone so well in the past...

2 second Laser burns for EVERYONE!

[Eisenhorne]

ShiverMeRivets, on 07 June 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

The original idea of them jamming permanently is how they should work. This will make people really think twice before double-tapping. For now it's boat a bunch of them and hapilly tap away.

.... wut

Edited by Eisenhorne, 07 June 2018 - 03:17 PM.

[Grus]

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

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

---

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?

oh ffs leave the lasers alone...

Ok so I read this from start to Finnish.. .. well done on the presentation, very well put together and easy to understand. However I dissagree on the document as a whole. From what I have read you have set the premise to water down clan weapons to be more inline with IS and to beef up IS to make it just... well better. So for my 2 cents I'm not going to agree with this at all. Yes there are some bits in here I will agree with (clan ac's and jam chances on both sides is one) but if it's all or nothing I'll take nothing.

I'm not going to write a book for a rebuttal so you know the TS come on and I'll go line by line.

[Stinger554]

ShiverMeRivets, on 07 June 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

Nice document, but PGI should make their own research and own decisions.

They do and typically they **** it up.

[Grus]

Stinger554, on 07 June 2018 - 03:50 PM, said:

They do and typically they **** it up.

TRUE! take that last energy change they tried to put into play.

[Seranov]

I actually quite like these changes. Most of the things that would be getting changed are low-performers and off-meta stuff, and that's the stuff that needs the most help. The previous changes were WAY too complicated and touched pretty much everything, meaning there was next to no baseline to work from. But these are mostly slight buffs to stuff that don't perform terribly well to begin with.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Very interesting.

Generally looks very positive.

I would love to see a PTS with these changes.


Little concerned about the 3 or above damage to heat ratio on the small lasers. Solaris has proven how important damage/heat is.

If lasers are getting damage nerfs, maybe they should also have a duration reduction as well.
The first half of a second is usually the most important for lasers, not the remaining 1.05 seconds.

Was a global nerf of crit chance considered?
https://mwo.gamepedia.com/Critical_Hit Is this current?
Or everything except LBX and flamers?
Reducing baseline crit chance might make massed MGs less crazy.

[Tarogato]

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

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

Maybe I don't trust an opinion coming from a power-craving lunatic pony-demon-girl.Oh, sorry. Didn't mean it.

process, on 07 June 2018 - 08:00 AM, said:

SRM2 improvements aren't enough. Reduce the cooldown to somewhere in the 1.5 to 1.75 range.

I think this buff is going to be changed from 1.9 to 1.8 soon. Voting on it at the moment. Thanks for bringing it up.

process, on 07 June 2018 - 08:00 AM, said:

IS LB20X [...] I'd rather start with a 50% damage buff. I'd also apply a similar damage buff to other IS LBX weapons.

Antares102, on 07 June 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

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?

Some of our suggestions made previously have found their way into the game. The HMG buff and ballistic ammo buff comes to mind (though we removed the ballistic ammo buff later in the interest of simplifying the proposal, lol)

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....

Missiles are not ignored? We're not going to splash green and red all over the spreadsheet as if to say, "look we changed stuff!"

We suggested an Artemis buff, which has a global effect. All Artemis SRMs and LRMs will enjoy this buff. We also buffed MRM cooldown, and IS LRM heat. Could you explain specifically what you have issue with? (I might be able to dig through your previous responses in the past thread, I remember you had lots, forgive me if I'm lazy here, sorry)

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

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)

While I personally dislike energy draw (I will oppose it with every fibre of my being), I have worked a tiny bit together with Kanajashi on energy draw balance, trying to reconcile the issues I have with it and seeing if a workable result can be achieved. Spreadsheets abound. Unfortunately, with a lot of my plate I don't have the time to devote to seeing it through at the moment.

[0Jiggs0]

I would be excited to see this as an actual balance patch (emphasis added for PGI).

What I like most about the proposal is that instead of focusing solely on normalizing the spreadsheets, the emphasis is instead on fitting weapons to specific roles. A pulse laser and an ER laser are different tools created to do different jobs, and the changes reflect that intent. Well done.

[Kaeb Odellas]

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

ClanAutoCannon5
The Clan standard autocannons are useless weapons. We recommend a reduction in shell count for all of them.

• 
  Shell Damage from 2.5 to 5
  
• 
  Shell Count from 2 to 1
  
• 
  DPS from 2.82 to 3.01 (+6.6%)
  
• 
  Duration from 0.11 to 0

If I'm reading this right, your C-AC5 buff would make it a straight upgrade over the IS AC5, with 100m more optimal range, 200m more max, and 1 ton less weight. That doesn't sound right.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 07 June 2018 - 07:20 PM.

[Asym]

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.

And, that is the point: they shouldn't be useless... Isn't that what balance is suppose to do? Equalize the weapons platforms??? Why have a weapon that is useless and then say "oh now, we are balance but, LRMs still suck.."

Good grief.

[Tarogato]

Montoya IIC, on 07 June 2018 - 08:43 AM, said:

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

Nameless King, on 07 June 2018 - 09:29 AM, said:

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

By this logic, you should dislike almost literally everything in the world. Very few things originate in the minds of many simultaneously. Even laws, voted on by vast congressions, often begin as the product of just one mind.

Do remember that game balance in MWO is largely decided by a small group of two people who work for PGI. But fair, maybe you dislike their work, I'll give you that. But what do you think the alternative is? Full, entire-community-wide balance? Even our panel of 4-6 people had difficulty reaching compromises and consensus through as fair and democratic approach as we could muster. And the more people you add, the harder it gets. I'm really not sure what you are expecting, here, short of a mess.

Judge the product by itself, not by who created it.

Jackal Noble, on 07 June 2018 - 09:51 AM, said:

So, basically IS buff across the board, with a few touches on useless clan weapon systems.

A: this seeks to make those useless clan weapons into...

...


... wait for it...


...



...

not useless!





B: we've also buffed cERSL, cSPL, and clan SRMs. All weapons which are quite decidedly ... not useless.

Jackal Noble, on 07 June 2018 - 09:51 AM, said:

Is this to be paired with a reduction of quirks?

Not included in the proposal because it adds a bit of complexity. We also kept many changes smaller than perhaps they deserve to be, with quirks in mind. I suppose the answer to your question is thus simultaneously yes and no.

For instance, though I don't think the changes proposed here would present any new stark imbalances, any further changes in the same direction should probably be preceded or at least directly accompanied with quirk changes. For instance, buffs to IS lasers such as the ML, ERML, MPL, are all done in mind that IS really relies heavily upon 5% and 10% heat gen quirks. Similarly, IS Machine Guns heavily lean on Rate of Fire quirks, and IS PPCs are basically not used at all on mechs that lack 10% heat gen and at least 30% velocity quirks.

Hypothetically, if our proposal was directly copy-pasted into the game, and some mechs became too strong using these such weapons, it would be appropriate to tune down the quirks, rather than the weapons. I think it would be fine in this particular case to handle it on a purely reactionary basis, rather than a predictive one, because we kept our changes slightly smaller than we otherwise would have in order to avoid these large upsets.

Hopefully that helps explain our perspective?

Edited by Tarogato, 07 June 2018 - 07:56 PM.

[Asym]

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

Missiles are not ignored? We're not going to splash green and red all over the spreadsheet as if to say, "look we changed stuff!"

We suggested an Artemis buff, which has a global effect. All Artemis SRMs and LRMs will enjoy this buff. We also buffed MRM cooldown, and IS LRM heat. Could you explain specifically what you have issue with? (I might be able to dig through your previous responses in the past thread, I remember you had lots, forgive me if I'm lazy here, sorry)

Return ARTEMIS to it's original state. 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...)

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.

[Y E O N N E]

Asym, on 07 June 2018 - 07:45 PM, said:

And, that is the point: they shouldn't be useless... Isn't that what balance is suppose to do? Equalize the weapons platforms??? Why have a weapon that is useless and then say "oh now, we are balance but, LRMs still suck.."

Good grief.

There was a limitation to what they were willing to do with this pass. If it requires a change to mechanics beyond moving existing values around, it was out of scope. Fixing LRMs, and Streaks for that matter (though Streaks have a niche), requires such a change. Ergo, they were unable to touch it this time. LRMs are not the only thing in the game like this, certain 'Mechs are also like this.

Also, missiles are nowhere near as broken as you are making them sound.

[LordNothing]

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.

Edited by LordNothing, 07 June 2018 - 08:41 PM.

[Tarogato]

Kaeb Odellas, on 07 June 2018 - 07:18 PM, said:

If I'm reading this right, your C-AC5 buff would make it a straight upgrade over the IS AC5, with 100m more optimal range, 200m more max, and 1 ton less weight. That doesn't sound right.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

process, on 07 June 2018 - 11:28 AM, said:

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

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.

FupDup, on 07 June 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

>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.

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.

Quote

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.

I don't strongly disagree. =3

Quote

>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.

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

Quote

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

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.

Quote

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

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)

Quote

>LB 2-X needs a larger spread reduction.

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.

Nightbird, on 07 June 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

Small lasers: [...] 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.

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.

Quote

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.

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?

Quote

Artemis: Disagree on SRMs, I still use them and feel they're absolutely worth the tonnage.

Vehemently agree to disagree. =[

Quote

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

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

Quote

Conclusion: please reduce clan bias.

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

[Nightbird]

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

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

At least for the LBX, same damage, spread, cool down, heat, velocity, yet IS has more slots and tons?

As for the small lasers stuff, I give my opinion as a pretty good light pilot. You're welcome to buff them, but I already r*** pretty hard with both IS and Clan versions.

I'm still waiting for a 16 energy point IS light to make IS SL work though ^^

[Tarogato]

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)