347 replies to this topic

[Dogstar]

Tarogato, on 13 June 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Hypothetically speaking, we remove Clans from MWO. No more Clan anything. Erased. Gonezo.

The chief goal of this proposal is to fix the weapons that are outright bad. This has nothing to do with inter-faction balance.

We don't need to eliminate either side, but if they can't be balanced then we _have_ to separate them.

and if this proposal doesn't address tech base balance that's just another reason to reject it

I expected better from this group of elite players who are proposing these changes

[Josh Seles]

After looking through the proposal document a couple times and forgetting to comment on version 2.0, I fully agree with the document, all in favor. I'm tired of having everything get nerfed with few, if any, buffs. I'd love to see these changes in-game, even in PTS form, and even as-is.

I do have my own suggestions, though.
- C-ERML damage down to 6, instead of 6.5, other changes intact.
- C-HLL damage down to 15.5, instead of 16, other changes intact. Originally, I agreed with 16 dmg here.
- C-ER PPC damage changed to 13.5 pinpoint, splash damage removed.
- IS Gauss Rifle changes swapped for its weight dropped to 14 tons.
- Light Gauss Rifle damage upped to 10, other stats changed accordingly.

- Possibly outside the scope of this proposal: 5.5 seconds of reload added to all forms of Gauss Rifle with charge-up removed, now that Gauss/PPC is good and dead.
Even after stacking around 250 000 XP on my Bounty Hunter just using a Gauss and 6 Med Lasers, I stopped using Gauss because I found the charge-up cumbersome. Mind you, this is during the era of good balance around early 2017, probably even before that.

Tech base rebalancing is outside the scope of this proposal. But the best part of this proposal is that we don't need to rebalance tech bases to fix the problems this proposal highlights. We don't have to fix Endo/Ferro/XL engines across Clan/IS to revert the small-class laser nerfs or the IS Med Laser recycle nerf. Having balanced tech bases isn't required to revert the SRM spread nerfs and the Artemis nerf. Fixing DHS on both sides isn't necessary just to drop the IS LB-X AC20 to 10 slots.

Even if this proposal did get an appearance on the PTS, the PTS itself is a problem because people don't play it. The reason people don't play PTS servers is because there's no reward or incentive to do so. Obviously, the solution for that is to incentivize the PTS.

What would you say to a Hero mech of your choice after playing 20 or 25 PTS matches and posting feedback on the associated PTS thread? If that isn't enough, toss in 6500 MC on top. Or even, 13 million Cbills and 182 skill points.

[process]

I used to think you needed to balance tech bases first, but I've come to realize there aren't actually that many variables on the table. Heatsinks values could be adjusted independently, and certain engines could use a buff without affecting anything else, but generally things like Endo/Ferro and other upgrades don't need to change. They're simply constants within each tech ecosystem.

The proposed weapon balance may be in isolation, but it will work for the dichotomy that currently exists.

[Kyrs]

Before balancing weapon we need to establish if that clans are not skill base as much as the I.S. (yes Paul I just Shattered all your dreams about your implementation of the clans)

Currently the IS mech benefit more from the high skill of the player. This cause by 3 intertwined factors; twist, burn time and armor buff. High skill players will hit their target and twist extremely fast to maximize the survivability of the mech, it easy to understand but are extremely hard to master properly. This clearly be seen when you face Evil or Goons in faction play, vs ALL the other IS players that can't do it properly.

MWO is a wave your flashlight game right now, it easier to win use laser that to use lrm effectively (useless your playing with a joystick), and that argument is valid for IS and Clan. Nerfing damage of laser won't change much. Drastically increasing burn time and reducing cooldown(same dps), is the only wait to push meta away from laser boat. Facetime must be the penalty for using easy vomit (and yes I personally is use this laser meta very very frequently, but no one see it do to the heavy rain cause by my teammates).

As for the clan gauss problem... I'm total stunt that increasing the ammo was not in the proposal, we all know it worked with ac10. You can increase incrementally the ammo up to 12,14,16 shoot per tons for IS GAUSS until that supposed capability gap is filled.

english is my secondary language so eye may bleed!!!

[MTier Slayed Up]

Josh Seles, on 14 June 2018 - 10:31 AM, said:

After looking through the proposal document a couple times and forgetting to comment on version 2.0, I fully agree with the document, all in favor. I'm tired of having everything get nerfed with few, if any, buffs. I'd love to see these changes in-game, even in PTS form, and even as-is.

I do have my own suggestions, though.
1 - C-ERML damage down to 6, instead of 6.5, other changes intact.
2 - C-HLL damage down to 15.5, instead of 16, other changes intact. Originally, I agreed with 16 dmg here.
3 - C-ER PPC damage changed to 13.5 pinpoint, splash damage removed.
4 - IS Gauss Rifle changes swapped for its weight dropped to 14 tons.
5 - Light Gauss Rifle damage upped to 10, other stats changed accordingly.

1. Why a .5 Change?
2. Why a .5 Change? Why do you think the people that debated about these changes are superseded by you?
3. Lol...Why?
4. Why?
5. No. Do not up the damage of light gauss given that it has such a low cool down in comparison to other gauss, this is a horrible idea and should be looked more in-depth rather than a damage change.

[FupDup]

DrtyDshSoap, on 14 June 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

1. Why a .5 Change?

For the CERML, going down to 6 would be more likely to have an actual impact on alpha strike power. 6.5 is barely different than 7. It's also a nice whole number instead of a decimal.

DrtyDshSoap, on 14 June 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

5. No. Do not up the damage of light gauss given that it has such a low cool down in comparison to other gauss, this is a horrible idea and should be looked more in-depth rather than a damage change.

I assume he's implying that the cooldown would be slowed down in exchange for the 10 damage. Obviously we wouldn't get 10 damage AND fast cooldown.

Edited by FupDup, 14 June 2018 - 11:43 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

LGauss DPS at 9 damage with the current cooldown and charge is only 2.9. The AC/10, by comparison, has 5.

I don't see a problem with a straight damage buff, there.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 14 June 2018 - 12:13 PM.

[Khobai]

process, on 14 June 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

I used to think you needed to balance tech bases first, but I've come to realize there aren't actually that many variables on the table. Heatsinks values could be adjusted independently, and certain engines could use a buff without affecting anything else, but generally things like Endo/Ferro and other upgrades don't need to change. They're simply constants within each tech ecosystem.

The proposed weapon balance may be in isolation, but it will work for the dichotomy that currently exists.

I disagree that Endo/Ferro dont need to change.

IS basically loses 7 crit slots and gains nothing in return for them.

That is terrible. Especially when IS weapons and DHS take up more crit slots. And even when IS tech takes up the same crit slots as the clan versions its generally worse (ISERML vs CERML for example)

IS also cant remove hand actuators on a lot of mechs like omnimechs can, so thats often another 1-2 crit slots that are lost. And usually means one less DHS can be put in that arm.

IS are massively disadvantaged when it comes to crit slots and its one of the major imbalances between clan and IS.

I know most of you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend thats its not a problem. But it IS a problem.

FupDup, on 14 June 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

For the CERML, going down to 6 would be more likely to have an actual impact on alpha strike power. 6.5 is barely different than 7. It's also a nice whole number instead of a decimal.

CERML at 6 is also internally balanced better with the CMPL. Why would you ever use a CMPL when it has massively less range and only does 0.5 more damage?

Quote

I assume he's implying that the cooldown would be slowed down in exchange for the 10 damage. Obviously we wouldn't get 10 damage AND fast cooldown.

LGauss needs to be:
10 damage, 3.25+0.5 cooldown, 900m range

Anything less than 10 damage and its just not worth 12 tons. LGauss should basically be the ballistic equivalent of the ERPPC.

Edited by Khobai, 14 June 2018 - 12:36 PM.

[process]

Khobai, on 14 June 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

I disagree that Endo/Ferro dont need to change.

IS basically loses 7 crit slots and gains nothing in return for them.

That is terrible. Especially when IS weapons and DHS take up more crit slots. And even when IS tech takes up the same crit slots as the clan versions its generally worse (ISERML vs CERML for example)

IS also cant remove hand actuators on a lot of mechs like omnimechs can, so thats another 1-2 crit slots that are lost.

IS are massively disadvantaged when it comes to crit slots and its one of the major imbalances between clan and IS.

I know most of you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend thats its not a problem. But it IS a problem.

I think the whole point of asymmetric balance is that IS mechs should be able to compete even with those limitations, whether it's through baseline stats, quirks, or weapon balance. An IS mech should be able to do more with less.

[Khobai]

Quote

I think the whole point of asymmetric balance is that IS mechs should be able to compete even with those limitations, whether it's through baseline stats, quirks, or weapon balance. An IS mech should be able to do more with less.

thats an impossible way to balance. you cant give all IS mechs free stat buffs/quirks for their endosteel/ferro sucking. Because not all IS mechs take endosteel/ferro. That is the whole reason why balancing with quirks is inherently flawed.

the only logical way to balance IS endosteel/ferro is to buff IS endostee/ferro itself. the IS versions cost more than the clan versions so they should be better. And that way you only end up buffing the IS mechs that actually take it.


And its still asymmetrical. But actually balanced:

Clan versions = take up 7 crit slots

IS versions = take up 14 crit slots but also gives a structure/armor bonus on top of the tonnage savings.

Edited by Khobai, 14 June 2018 - 12:52 PM.

[process]

Khobai, on 14 June 2018 - 12:45 PM, said:

thats an impossible way to balance. you cant give all IS mechs stat buffs/quirks for their endosteel/ferro sucking. Because not all IS mechs take endosteel/ferro.

the only logical way to balance IS endosteel/ferro is to buff IS endostee/ferro. it costs more than the clan versions so it should be better. And then you only end up buffing the IS mechs that actually take it.

Right, some mechs don't take endo/ferro because they value crit space over tonnage, just like many Clan mech builds. It's a trade off that works internally to each tech base.

Cost is irrelevant on the battlefield.

[Tarogato]

Khobai, on 14 June 2018 - 12:45 PM, said:

the only logical way to balance IS endosteel/ferro is to buff IS endostee/ferro itself. [...]

Clan versions = take up 7 crit slots
IS versions = take up 14 crit slots but also gives a structure/armor bonus on top of the tonnage savings.

Buffing Endo/Ferro does nothing for mechs that don't fit Endo/Ferro. Unless you reduce the slots so that you can take Endo/Ferro when you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to. But good luck convincing PGI to change something which is that fundamental.

[Reno Blade]

Kyrs, on 14 June 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

Before balancing weapon we need to establish if that clans are not skill base as much as the I.S. (yes Paul I just Shattered all your dreams about your implementation of the clans)

Currently the IS mech benefit more from the high skill of the player. This cause by 3 intertwined factors; twist, burn time and armor buff. High skill players will hit their target and twist extremely fast to maximize the survivability of the mech, it easy to understand but are extremely hard to master properly. This clearly be seen when you face Evil or Goons in faction play, vs ALL the other IS players that can't do it properly.

MWO is a wave your flashlight game right now, it easier to win use laser that to use lrm effectively (useless your playing with a joystick), and that argument is valid for IS and Clan. Nerfing damage of laser won't change much. Drastically increasing burn time and reducing cooldown(same dps), is the only wait to push meta away from laser boat. Facetime must be the penalty for using easy vomit (and yes I personally is use this laser meta very very frequently, but no one see it do to the heavy rain cause by my teammates).

As for the clan gauss problem... I'm total stunt that increasing the ammo was not in the proposal, we all know it worked with ac10. You can increase incrementally the ammo up to 12,14,16 shoot per tons for IS GAUSS until that supposed capability gap is filled.

english is my secondary language so eye may bleed!!!

Yes, the "long" burn of clan lasers are still too "easy" to use, so we can't really say the Clan warriors need to be more skilled than IS warriors, yet.
But if the burn times are longer, it's much harder to bring the full damage to target, to the specific section and then don't get cored for staring at the target for so long.

=> The same long burn staring is actually the effect of harder Ghost Heat limits, as you need to spread your Laser alpha into multiple groups to not suffer extra heat.

So, imho, it's the best way to balance Clans by using longer burns / ghost heat limits to spread out laser fire more.
I just don't see why many people are so afraid of GH, when in most cases it's barely 5 extra heat (e.g. 1x HLL limit would have given us 5.6 heat or so when using 2x HLL)

In addition: more GH means the base weapon stats can be buffed (lower heat, lower burn) so smaller mechs can take advantage of the base stat buff while heavier boats need to split the fire.

[Kyrs]

Reno Blade, on 16 June 2018 - 08:04 AM, said:

Yes, the "long" burn of clan lasers are still too "easy" to use, so we can't really say the Clan warriors need to be more skilled than IS warriors, yet.
But if the burn times are longer, it's much harder to bring the full damage to target, to the specific section and then don't get cored for staring at the target for so long.


=> The same long burn staring is actually the effect of harder Ghost Heat limits, as you need to spread your Laser alpha into multiple groups to not suffer extra heat.

So, imho, it's the best way to balance Clans by using longer burns / ghost heat limits to spread out laser fire more.
I just don't see why many people are so afraid of GH, when in most cases it's barely 5 extra heat (e.g. 1x HLL limit would have given us 5.6 heat or so when using 2x HLL)

In addition: more GH means the base weapon stats can be buffed (lower heat, lower burn) so smaller mechs can take advantage of the base stat buff while heavier boats need to split the fire.

All laser in MWO are to easy to use, clan and IS. The argument here is that perfect torso twist is a hard counter to constant aiming skill. Increasing burn time for all laser will push tier 2 and tier 1 away from laser meta do to twist counter. Nobody like face time. (except maybe tier 5 some players). Increasing burn time of all laser will give tier 4 and 5 player more time to torso twist (vs there reflex).

The currently heavy large laser problem is that is over performing because it burn time is to short and the capacity to have a higher sustain dps higher that the IS counterpart. So clan player will abuse this fact. Heat and Burn time need to be adjusted for this weapon and then after that we need to push increase all burn time on all the laser(clan and is). There will be tears...

If you look at engine and double heat sink, Clan and I.S. are currently balance. Contrary to popular I.S. belief.
Medium stats reference example(not-meta):
HBR:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...41a9e543be71910
vs
JESTER:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...31555e4813a54f2

Heavy Large laser vs Large laser stats reference example (not-meta): Overperformance of H.L.L.
HBR:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...d26ffbdca796eb5
vs
JESTER:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...ebf83af15803ac7

Paul initial Ghost Heat changes was most likely base and these stats. He probably wanted 3 clan Heavy Med to match 6 IS med by forcing it onto players with G.H. and do the same to HLL vs large.

Burn time with G.H. complicate everything in a subjective mess.

[Mcgral18]

Nightbird, on 12 June 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

Okily Dokily... I can't wait to see what I will do when my 'sub-par' 6 CSPL Cheeta is brought up to average...

...what it used to do?
It used to have amazing cSPLs AND double leg structure, if you didn't know

It was too good then



If you think small pulses are in a good place, I'd like to know why.

[FupDup]

Mcgral18, on 16 June 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

...
If you think small pulses are in a good place, I'd like to know why.

Well, I dunno if I'd call them "good," but they are at least usable or kinda viable. I use 6 of them on a Cauldron Born as my backup guns (main guns are 2 ERPPCs) and they work fairly well (other than requiring facetime on a mech with a squishy CT but that's not a CSPL problem).

In my limited experience using them (I don't use knife-fighter lights ever) I'd say the issue is that they lack the raw bite to be true main weapons like they used to be, unless you can carry a large number of them on something like a Nova.

[Vesper11]

Kyrs, on 16 June 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

If you look at engine and double heat sink, Clan and I.S. are currently balance. Contrary to popular I.S. belief.
Medium stats reference example(not-meta):
HBR:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...41a9e543be71910
vs
JESTER:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...31555e4813a54f2

Heavy Large laser vs Large laser stats reference example (not-meta): Overperformance of H.L.L.
HBR:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...d26ffbdca796eb5
vs
JESTER:
https://mwo.smurfy-n...ebf83af15803ac7

Paul initial Ghost Heat changes was most likely base and these stats. He probably wanted 3 clan Heavy Med to match 6 IS med by forcing it onto players with G.H. and do the same to HLL vs large.

Burn time with G.H. complicate everything in a subjective mess.

Replace cHLL with cLPL and see what changes~

[Sir Immortal Shadow]

I support a small buff to Light Gauss damage and velocity because of its slight resemblance to AC/2s and /5s. They have a high rate of fire to make them more effective compared to tabletop, which is kind of necessary because of the boosted health in this game and the high weight investments. Large Lasers also have boosted damage and heat efficiency compared to tabletop, as well as having the same damage as light gauss rifles on tt.
I think the light gauss deserves a small buff like that too, but I don't want it to be taken in the same direction as the lighter autocannons, and a light gauss should do more than tickle with each shot.
The IS machine guns buff and clan ER medium damage nerf sound good too.
Some of the other buffs might be a little unneeded. My small lasers feel like cool reliable effective *secondary* weapons to me, good for pairing with larger weapons that don't allow for much heat dispersion, but do have hardpoints available.

Edited by Sir Immortal Shadow, 16 June 2018 - 03:21 PM.

[R5D4]

MischiefSC, on 13 June 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:

I agree on all points. Even if just as a frame of reference it has value - however PGI has consistently shown they are happy to follow a majority on something yoh take steps to get majority buy-in and you have a strong case to put before PGI.

But what is majority? 51% could, technically, be considered majority but PGI appears to think it's closer to 60 - 70%
So what's the line?

[Nightbird]

Mcgral18, on 16 June 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

...what it used to do?
It used to have amazing cSPLs AND double leg structure, if you didn't know

It was too good then



If you think small pulses are in a good place, I'd like to know why.

https://mwomercs.com...43#entry6107443

Nightbird, on 03 June 2018 - 08:20 PM, said:

https://leaderboard....rch?u=nightbird

9 KDR in solo quick play? The pre-nerf Piranha couldn't touch this, could we get some nerfs here? Lights are not supposed to be good

9KDR, 3.6WLR, rank 6, 6SPL Cheata